Fat people and gubment assistance

Yup. And admittedly, it's really easy to fall into the trap of taking stereotypes as truths, of taking the lowest common denominator and expecting it to denote the totality.

But. Stereotypes don't develop in a void. True, there can be a certain amount of propaganda to depict all members of "that group" in a derogatory way. But the image of "welfare recipient as drug addict/baby factory" wouldn't have arisen if there weren't a large proportion of welfare recipients who fit that mold. And the same goes for a LOT of other popular stereotypes...

People like to rail against how unfair stereotypes are. That can certainly be true. But just as often, there's some truth in the stereotype - and if the focus is SOLELY on how unfair the stereotype is, then you lose the opportunity to identify and solve a problem at the heart of the stereotype.

 

This is all true...however it is equally as common for people to focus on the stereotype _as_ the problem. In your example of the drug addict/baby factory, the problem there isn't welfare, it's welfare abusers who are drug addict/baby factories. However, the vast majority of conservatives equate the stereotype with the underlying idea/concept/program itself.

Stereotypes are often fairer than many of us would care to admit. The challenge lies in differentiating between the stereotypical problem (the drug addict/baby factories) and the underlying concept (provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or welfare).

When you stack on top of that the gross misconceptions that people have about the poor in this country, the situation becomes more muddled. Every time I hear some ignorant asspipe say something like "Well, I lost my job, and I just went out and got another one...all it takes is a little discipline and hard work, anyone could do it if they wanted to" I want to scream.

Sorry, I digress...

 

Yeah, I know. You can't get a job if you don't have a home address, or if you can't take regular showers, or if the only clothes you have are shabby and filthy and you have no way to wash them. If you can get into a shelter of some kind, *maybe* you can get a bottom-rung minimum wage job, but that won't pay you enough to afford rent and decent clothes and food etc., AND the moment you have ANY documented money coming in, you're now ineligible for whatever minimal help you might get... Trust me. I know that stereotypes are simplistic at best, and that digging oneself out of that hole is NOT easy (and sometimes not possible) and when you've tried enough, and been beaten down enough, spending your last twenty bucks on a rock or a shot (or having a kid so you'll at least be able to get assistance) is the only option left that looks remotely feasible.

I also know, being human, that as a human it's reeeeeally easy to swallow whatever line or answer seems simplest and spout it as truth. Liberals, conservatives, doesn't matter, it's human nature, we all do it. And it's really easy to sit around on a BBS spouting off fine fancy words about coulds and shoulds and "if I were king" and all that, when the world would look very different to all of us if we were in those shoes, or knew that kind of deep-down despair.

In the end, there are no easy answers. I think we all (well, except for brad) know that.

The point is... what was the point again? I'm not sure I had one. Except to say, yeah, thass'true. Lot of different perspectives on this issue, and ALL of them have some truth in 'em somewhere.

Debating issues on a BBS is easy. Actually solving the problems is not.

 

Here is a perfect example of my earlier point. Darrin, bless his heart has fallen into the conservative trap of equating those who WILL not help themselves with those who CANNOT help themselves. Nothing in any of the posts previous to this one above mentioned anything about feeding people who chose not to work...he just assumed.

Anyway, we _do_ have the moral obligation as a society to support those who need it. Those who abuse it are an entirely different matter.

 

"We are the Champions.

WE are the Champions!

Of the world..."

 

Ocams Razor

 

Norelco, I thought.

 

The biggest problem with the folks that fit the stereotypes being discussed here (free-loaders) is that they are multipling. Most of the folks abusing the welfare system today (and for the past few decades) were BORN into it and raised that way. They know no different. They too are having kids and guess what? The goverment pays them more. Brad is correct, I have no doubt there are MANY MANY more abusing the system than are using it to get back on their feet. Yes, we still need some programs that help folks out, it would likely cost society more if we didn't, but there needs to be reforms. Limits, better laws and prosecution of those who fraud the system. It would likely cost us more to get folks off the programs (short term) in increased crime, abuse, neglected kids and seniors, etc, but it ain't going to get any better and will only get worse. So what if they make foodstamps so you can only by the necessities like milk, bread, etc? In PA, that's the way it used to be (I have no idea how it is now).

While we are at it, can I invest my own money instead of giving it to social security? Pretty please? (Brad was right here too...)

 

You know nothing of me or what I understand, what I have experienced personally nor what I have seen.

I have CLEARLY acknowledged that there are those that deserve and use assistance as a safety net, and those that need and deserve long term assistance, I have not in any way advocated the elimination nor curtailing of any program that benefits these deserving people. NEVER have I painted that EVERYONE is as you describe, in fact if you re-read my post I suggest that savings could be used to further improve conditions for the deserving. Just because I am emphatic about eliminating fraud and abuse you surmise that I am assailing everyone as undeserving?

There are a significant percentage of PEOPLE that abuse the system and have NO interest in ever working believing that the assistance is a "right", are you contesting this? Yes I describe them in the most derisive and extreme terms, It is the reality of who they are. There are others that use those in the system to defraud the system, these people need to be punished, they steal from the generosity of all that pay taxes and from the most needy in the country.


We are NOT obligated to help EVERYONE, only those that deserve

 

Since you choose to frame your statement with term "conservative trap” let me help you with your "liberal ignorance” and "liberal arrogance"

You practice with typical liberal expertise the art of making a false statement as a form of fact.

READ THE THREAD, FEEDING THOSE THAT CHOOSE NOT TO WORK WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED, IT WAS NOT ASSUMED BY DTALBOTT.
.

 

No, I don't know you, nor your experiences. And I want to take this "personal" edge off our exchanges, so I appologise for getting your back up.

I do not deny that "there are a significant percentage of PEOPLE that abuse the system and have NO interest in ever working believing that the assistance is a "right"...." - I do not deny this fact.
...NOR do I envy a single member of this group. I never find myself seeing people cashing in their food stamps and think "damn!! how lucky they are, they can eat twinkies on tax dollars!!!".
...Nor do I often ponder how I might have made better decisions in my life that I too might now enjoy government HUD housing.

The difference between you and me might be that I pity even the fuckers that abuse welfare. Or, it might not - since I don't know you, as you said earlier......

 

Take it easy there Mr. Shouty...I specifically quoted Darrin...and here it is again for you.

"We do not have a 'moral obligation' to help people who will not help themselves."

I assume nothing...it's right there..."...WHO WILL NOT HELP THEMSELVES." Sorry for the caps, but I though you might relate better if I yelled.

I was simply expanding on the point I made in my earlier post, not commenting on the entire thread. That's why I cited the specific quote to comment upon.

 

good god damned thing you don't live in bradonia you lazy fucking brit-wit.


can you say "stupid DEAD mark B??

 

I just want to say, I read every one of Cinderella's posts on this thread, and could not find one thing she said with which I disagree.


Wow.



You'll all have to pardon MarkB, he's grown up in a country so awash in socialism that he just can't recognise it as such anymore.

 

MarkB has no need to worry since Bradonia exists only as a protectorate of the Mongosphere.

One button click and it's entire population gets deported.

Again

 

I hear Bradonia has one of the world's largest archive of pornography photography and literature, painstaking collected from around the world - reckon I could live there in peace for a bit..... so long as Mad King Brad was on a state visit to Hooters or something....

Hey, I think I came off pretty sensibly in that little debate there. I changed my view towards agreeing some additional restrictions on the use of food stamps, yet I still managed show a caring and compassionate view of today's needy - as demonstrated by my line "I pity even the fuckers that abuse welfare" .

 

Labour government 1945-1950(?), Conservative government 1950(?)-1964 (I think it was then). Labour gov. 1964-1970. Conservative gov. 1970-1974. Labour gov. 1974-1979. Conservative gov. 1979-1997, led for the first 11 years by Margaret Thatcher, later by John Major. The main reasons for 18 years of Conservative rule were people remembering how bad things were under Labour in the late '70's and there being no real credible opposition.

The present government which was first elected in 1997 has more in common with the Conservative Party than it does with the Labour governments of the 60's and 70's and I believe that Tony Blair is the first Labour Prime Minister to be re-elected.

Since the early '50's the Conservatives have held power in Britain for almost double the amount of time that the Labour Party have, and if you look at the period between 1979 and 1997 the country had a very right wing government. I think both MarkB and myself would be very surprised to find that we grew up in a country 'awash in socialism' but then again considering your parochial view of the world it doesn't surprise me.

And to paraphrase your signature line: Don't be so closed minded that you don't use your brain.

 

I know. World's coming to an end, I tell ya.

 

Re: Re: money

you're being redundant........

 

I think it is wonderful that you want to help those that cannot help themselse. Please feel free to do so with your money. I will decide what causes I want to send my money to.

Perhaps some will be the same causes, others will not.

For the gonvernment to use tax money in this way is extorting money from me. From reading the above post it appears each person has their own opinion as to whom or how much to give. If this were truely a free society we could act on those veiws instead of those using our money to buy votes in the next election.


By the way the money I donate goes to Greyhoud rescue, they are not fat