xenon13 wrote:
zacb wrote:
Should we ban people who have been in prison from using welfare? And Just because someone use drug, does that mean that they are lazy? (since that would be one argument for it, that it would make you lazy) Also the legal implications. Under a SCOTUS ruling, drug addiction is a disability. So for a government to pick and choose (discriminate) is illegal.
Some jurisdictions do that in the USA. Ghastly. They also hand prisoners huge bills at the end of their terms and they aren't allowed to declare bankruptcy. Full-fledged slavery is just around the corner.
As for the use of public programmes to micromanage private lives and the truth that Denmark doesn't do that, this is because those who warn of such tyranny (the hard, hard Social Darwinist right) don't exist in Denmark as in the US because those are the people who when they take power insist on using public programmes to micromanage private lives. They warn of a problem that they themselves plan to create. They whine already about having to pay for these programmes so they insist on making it as "cost effective" as possible by weeding out people they think cost too much and also in order to effectively shred the programme and make people want to get rid of it as something not worth the hassle.
The US has a history of welfare citizens abusing the system. Attempts to control it have historically led to worse problems.
For example: Single mothers have always been able to receive aid for themselves and their children, BUT they have to show a family income below a certain level in order to do that. What they used to do, I think it was, like, back in the 1930s, was they'd send social workers out to the housing projects from time to time to verify that they were functionally single-parent families. This could happen at any time, of course, and what would happen is that husbands would jump out of fire-escapes so that their families wouldn't lose their benefits. Over time, the husband was increasingly absent until eventually he completely left the picture entirely. And that's the way it's been over the last 70 or so years. They broke up families and perpetuated a cycle of single-parent families. They start early, raping girls as young as 9 years old and getting them pregnant by age 12. More children in the household = more benefits. These young women and grandmothers are being PAID to make babies, which they in turn teach their kids when they get older. They punish the dads by making them pay child-support, which either they can't or they just plain won't. If an unwilling father knows that when he takes a job he won't be allowed to keep any of the money for himself, guess what happens? He'll refuse to get a job.
And I know for a FACT this happens. I mean, sure, I read about it a lot in my college sociology class. But my first year as a public school teacher (grades 5-8 ) I had two girls that were mothers and one girl (7th grade) who was pregnant. When I moved on to a different district, this time in the Mississippi Delta region, I happened to have a dysfunctional mom AND her baby-daddy in a high school class, and on more than one occasion they'd disrupt my class with their personal drama. I got to know way more than I wanted to about family dynamics within minorities and the lower socio-economic classes!
You CAN'T get rid of the programs because so many people do depend on them. What you as a society have figure out is whether you find it morally/ethically acceptable to give people a blank check when there is a high potential for abuse. After that you have to figure out how to whittle down the programs themselves so you can eliminate wasteful spending, that is, assuming you find a need to. But, most importantly, you have to implement educational programs to reach the young (before their mamas get to them) and reduce their NEED for expensive handouts.
I mean, seriously... 9-12 year olds getting pregnant? And they don't see this as a problem? I mean, first of all onset of puberty on average is slightly later than that, so...that means that these girls are being raped probably at an earlier age than than 9. Second, it's apparent that the moms are ok with that. Do we ask who the father is? Maybe, but then all of a sudden our IQ level crashes and we don't know anything. We don't report it to the cops. We don't get emergency contraception. In reality, you'll often find that there are uncles or cousins that are doing this, but since the families are well aware of what's going on they keep tight-lipped about it. The girls obviously need to be told a few things to keep this from happening. But the real criminals here are the fathers who are raping those little girls and getting away with it.
Solutions? I dunno. Prosecute the child abusers and castrate them (or, if this is a "sickness" or if they're "born that way," implement treatment for "unwanted" pedophiliac tendencies, etc.) so it never happens again. Put the grammas behind bars who are knowingly complicit in allowing abuse to happen. Get the kids out of abusive homes and in special foster homes in which their caregivers are TRAINED to help educate these kids to keep themselves out of harms way and to function independently within society and stay out of unnecessary expensive welfare programs.
I don't know how well any of that would actually work or what it would take to make it work, but at least I'm trying to come up with some ideas or plan a direction to mitigate the problems and eventually stop it from happening. This is a problem that's bigger than me and will require a lot of planning to figure out how to actually make it happen. Maybe there's a better solution, and that's fine. But keeping our heads in the sand is NOT working.
Again, I don't know that drug testing for welfare is the answer either, and it's not looking like that is likely in the near future anyway. But I do know that if you accept a government solution, you have to follow government rules. A good, personal rule I live by is "Beware the free lunch."
This already happens in other areas. People who accepted bailout money and bought into Obamacare found out those solutions weren't really great ideas, though they seemed to be at the time. The corporations were taking the money and funding bonuses and having parties on the public tab. People got upset, the government imposed rules, and some actually made an effort to return the money in order to get out from under the rules. What others are saying about drug use is that public money is being used to support drugs addictions that could either be treated or even prevented entirely and that they do not wish THEIR money being wasted in support of criminal activity.
...
I'm also amused by the negative attitudes towards classical music. Sure, I have two degrees in academic music, but that doesn't mean necessarily that I'm a big fan. But you also have to keep in mind that at one point in time concert music was reserved for the very wealthy, beginning with the blue-blood class and eventually supported by the independently wealthy and really anyone who could afford it. Now you can't even give it away for free and get a packed room. But at least you do get an hour to focus on something else other than the mundane, there are LIVE performers involved, and more often you have comfortable seating to relax in. Even my 3 and 4yo understand proper chamber recital etiquette and always enjoy the event--the performers sometimes get nervous because kids that age are so unpredictable, but a good parent can train them to sit still as statues and keep their mouths shut. Even if it doesn't match your personal taste, it's still a good bang for the buck since you get the same high standard of professional performance as you would a paid concert. Seriously, my own personal fee for a public performance is $125 for up to two hours, and we haven't even discussed travel costs. With multiple performers together with what it costs to rent the venue and travel stipends, tickets can get pricey. Getting international talent for an hour, a $30-$50 value for free? You only do yourself a favor to check it out. It's shameful both that people don't know that they can just walk right into a free concert and that if they do know about it, they just don't care. That EVERYONE has the privilege to enjoy these kinds of events shouldn't be taken so lightly. Enjoy it or not, I'm not letting my family take it for granted.
22 May 2012, 6:01 pm
