Posted by 838 on March 10, 2006, at 22:53:21
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:54:03
Ah. I guess by 'welfare' I'm always talking basic needs. To the best of my knowlege... No welfare country tries (or wants) to have it so that people are better off on welfare than they are working! I've never thought that 'people have the right to welfare' implied anything other than 'people have the right to have their basic needs met whether they choose to work or not'. But yeah, someone has to pay for it that is true...
> When I read the first one I thought "yeah, and I'm paying for it" When I read the second one I thought "well, of course, no one should be allowed to go hungry"
No one should be allowed to go hungry... Even if that means the working people have to pay to feed those who would go hungry otherwise?
I think so. Just checking understanding...
> I guess the only possible debate we would have would be what a person's "basic needs" are.Typically... Food, shelter, education, health, i think that is about it...
> Clean clothes that fit - or designer jeans.
Is that really debated?
> Good wholesome food - or steak.
Some places consider steak to be good wholesome food... The rub is that typically 'good wholesome food' (fruit vegetables and stuff that is relatively unprocessed) is a whole heap more expensive than the cheapest processed crap that people who aren't wealthy typically have to live on (whether they are working or not...)
> Safe housing - or ...
> well, you get my drift. And of course there are degrees in between.Yeah. Is this really controversial though?
I guess it is... Took a while to get to the 'people have the right to have their basic needs' bit... I guess people will haggle over 'basic too'. Generally... I would think it would be common sense (but maybe not). life saving operation - need. plastic surgery (elective) not a need. and so on...
> And I agree that most would work if they could move their standard of living from column "a" to column "b" - assuming they are healthy enough to work.yeah. though... it is also true that some choose not to. and i think that we should still continue to meet their basic needs. some people who choose not to... consider themselves artists or dancers or poets or whatever... you get street art and decent graffitti and street mime and stuff... these people do it for free... because that is what they want to do with their time and they ARE putting something back into the community. they choose to be poor... they could work and earn more... but they would rather have their time. it is a lifestyle choice. i think they should be supported. then there are people who sit in front of the tv all day. typically... depression. i mean... jeepers... i don't know of one happy camper who sits in front of the tv all day. other pepole... don't believe they can do anything worthwhile... other people... have serious drug addictions etc. i don't think we should let them starve either...
> And most Americans would agree that a person not working because of a disability or because they are in a training program should get a better standard of living than column 'a.'
really? over here... disability and training program is little better (training programs a little worse... disability a little better) than the unemployment benefit. basic needs. all these people (in nz) get basic needs (and sometimes that is tricky)
> Where Americans disagree - as do most of the world I guess - is *how* that aid is to get to the person needing it.oh.
> I'm not one that thinks it should all come from the private sector, but there is a good argument that the private sector is a lot more efficient than the government is. And Americans are, for the most part, very giving people.private sector? how do you mean?
> Like I said, when Katrina hit NO, there was a line outside the Astrodome of people looking for a family to take in. Other lines with food, clothes, volunteers who only had time. They were turning people and donations away because they had too many? You, literally, had to "know somebody" to be able to get into the dome to help.
right. and... my guess would be... that over time... that would dry up. if you leave things like this as a discretionary matter... then there has to be a campaign to keep it in peoples faces or people... forget. i guess my issue with leaving it to personal choice is thta some people opt out. i don't think they should be allowed to opt out. they have a duty to help the society that has helped them... if it is personal then some people give too much and some others give not enough. and also... is the money well spent? the idea behind govt agency is that there is a central budget thing. they figure out how much will go to health and how much to education and how much to social services (welfare) etc etc. also... labour is trying to give all parents 20 hours of free daycare per week... that is going to cost a bomb... but if it relied on donations... the notion is that there can be money put into preventative campaigns as opposed to clean ups. the idea is also that... businesses may seem more efficient... if they think they are inefficient... they hire another manager... who manages to lay off a couple staff (to justify their job) and so it goes on... i'm not convinced the private sector is more economical or whatever... but then given the current administration... i wouldn't be happy giving more to them. i mean... bombs seem to be prioritised over increasing the minimum wage... or over giving everyone in the country adequate health cover or whatever... given teh priorities... i wuldn't be very happy giving tax dollars to them...
> Volunteers tutor those who can't read. Build houses for those who need them. Donate to food banks.
we hae volounteer organisations too...> In fact we probably give more that way than if they raised taxes to pay for the same things.
really? with 10% of the country having over half the wealth I find that hard to believe... I think... you are focused on the middle class once more. the idea is to tax most from those who have most... when you have peopel living in billion dollar mansions... it might seem nice when they donate a million or two but what percentage is that of their income? might well compare to me giving one dollar when i was on welfare. and that dollar might have made the difference between a bus home and a 40 minute walk. how much does it cost to take a limo with your own driver on a 40 minute ride do you think? is this making any sense...
poster:838
thread:617294
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/618660.html