Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on March 07, 2014, 07:51:57 AM
-
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-contraceptives-sex-promiscuity-20140306,0,1545160.story#axzz2vHTAQa2c
At least, not for women in St. Louis.
-
Fail. There is no such thing as 'free' birth control, unless you are speaking of abstinence.
-
Somebody is paying for it.
How about calling it Taxpayer provided birth control?
-
I like to call it taxpayer-provided prevention of more welfare children with a corresponding decrease on social services, healthcare, and schooling that I would otherwise be paying for. So from that standpoint, the numbers pencil out.
-
"Free" contraception no more creates sluts than "free" food or "free" plastic spoons create gluttons. But they surely do enable those already so inclined as they no longer need to pay for their own consumables.
Of course, this is a novel use of the word "free."
I like to call it taxpayer-provided prevention of more welfare children with a corresponding decrease on social services, healthcare, and schooling that I would otherwise be paying for. So from that standpoint, the numbers pencil out.
Those who are most likely to to suck on the gov't teat and create more of same are not likely to make the effort to get even free birth control. Were talking some folks for whom cause & effect is akin to magic.
There needs to be:
1. Permanent/semi-permanent and reliable birth control solution.
2. Incentives for folks to partake.
I would place a bounty on vas deferens and fallopian tubes of, say, $2000 in gift cards. "Get cut, get cards." Maybe a $500 bounty on Norplant or similar long-term implanted birth control. "Get stuck, get stuff."
-
I like to call it taxpayer-provided prevention of more welfare children with a corresponding decrease on social services, healthcare, and schooling that I would otherwise be paying for. So from that standpoint, the numbers pencil out.
Until I see some hard savings numbers- not obamacare-esque projections, I like to call it "more armed robery by .gov."
Liberal programs always sound good on paper, yet few to none of them are willing to pledge their own personal paycheck to sponsor birth control for a few individuals on their own...
This program is just another government 'fix' to another problem caused by government.
Free *expletive deleted*it is eventually going to run out. If you really want to help the needy, start weaning able-bodied people off the free *expletive deleted*it.
-
I like to call it taxpayer-provided prevention of more welfare children with a corresponding decrease on social services, healthcare, and schooling that I would otherwise be paying for. So from that standpoint, the numbers pencil out.
But it's not the final solution.
-
But it's not the final solution.
Execution seems a bit excessive.
-
Ummm... interesting way of framing the results. From the article:
New research has found that women are on average no more likely to have multiple sexual partners in a single month after they are provided no-cost access to birth control methods than they were before. And while women reported a slight uptick in their reported monthly sexual encounters a year after getting free contraceptives, the new study says the resulting frequency of sexual activity fell within expected boundaries for women of childbearing age.
Hmmm... so, people respond to incentives and cost. Even with sex and birth control. Shocking.
(And, given that birth control is so inexpensive in the first place, I'm not surprised that lowering it from $30 to 0 doesn't greatly alter incentives.)
-
Not sure how or why I give two shits how often someone else has sex. Generally, I only care how much sex I have.
IMHO, if you take from uncle sam, you should have to play by his rules. Mandatory BC via invasive methods if you're on welfare. I have no problem taking someone else's freedom who is taking my money from me by the force of a gun.
-
Not sure how or why I give two shits how often someone else has sex. Generally, I only care how much sex I have.
I don't care, either. Unfortunately, when I have to pay for it, it becomes my business. I don't want it to be my business, stop (the Government) from making me pay for it and it will no longer be my business.
("I WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY BEDROOM! SO PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL!"- Not ascribing it to you, but just cataloging the insanity. )
-
I don't care, either. Unfortunately, when I have to pay for it, it becomes my business. I don't want it to be my business, stop (the Government) from making me pay for it and it will no longer be my business.
("I WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY BEDROOM! SO PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL!"- Not ascribing it to you, but just cataloging the insanity. )
So from that standpoint, you should be in favor of any measures that reduce the total cost of Government support; i.e.: making more welfare babies, correct? If a small amount of Government expenditure reduces the total financial burden, I would think that is a concept that everyone should support.
-
I don't care, either. Unfortunately, when I have to pay for it, it becomes my business. I don't want it to be my business, stop (the Government) from making me pay for it and it will no longer be my business.
("I WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY BEDROOM! SO PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL!"- Not ascribing it to you, but just cataloging the insanity. )
The only thing about it is that if having taxpayer funded birth control makes someone sexually promiscuous, it isn't any skin off my teeth. I'm already getting *expletive deleted*ed, so to speak, by them taking "free" BC from me to begin with. It is better than them popping out welfare babies.
Ultimately, I'm of the 0 welfare camp. There should not be a single red *expletive deleted*ing dime going into "entitlement". I literally only support federal spending on defense. Everything else is clearly negotiable and could be done better/cheaper/faster by state governments or private entities.
-
I would place a bounty on vas deferens and fallopian tubes of, say, $2000 in gift cards. "Get cut, get cards." Maybe a $500 bounty on Norplant or similar long-term implanted birth control. "Get stuck, get stuff."
In India they had a program where a vasectomy would get you a gun license.
Also:http://www.projectprevention.org
-
In India they had a program where a vasectomy would get you a gun license.
Did they have Sean Connery in a red diaper with a WFAR to promote it?
-
There needs to be:
1. Permanent/semi-permanent and reliable birth control solution.
2. Incentives for folks to partake.
I would place a bounty on vas deferens and fallopian tubes of, say, $2000 in gift cards. "Get cut, get cards." Maybe a $500 bounty on Norplant or similar long-term implanted birth control. "Get stuck, get stuff."
The only problem with this is the STD aspect, they catch something and there they are down at the clinic getting a shot or if it's bad enough, years of medical treatments. We still get to pay and pay and pay.
-
The only problem with this is the STD aspect, they catch something and there they are down at the clinic getting a shot or if it's bad enough, years of medical treatments. We still get to pay and pay and pay.
I do not believe in any program that solves all problems or covers 100% of the angles. Such is the stuff of totalitarianism.
Also, I would be happy if the CURRENT welfare generation were the LAST welfare generation, even if they were poxed.
-
I do not believe in any program that solves all problems or covers 100% of the angles.
I like to recall Voltaire's quote: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Insisting on perfection usually means that things are never even started. I will take what gains I can.
-
I like to call it taxpayer-provided prevention of more welfare children with a corresponding decrease on social services, healthcare, and schooling that I would otherwise be paying for. So from that standpoint, the numbers pencil out.
This is my POV. I'd rather pay for taxpayer-funded contraceptives than all the programs mentioned. Is it a perfect solution? Nope.
Roo_ster's solution would probably bring up eugenics arguments. Personally, if it was voluntary, I wouldn't see any ethical problems with it. I plan on getting snipped in the near future myself.
-
This is my POV. I'd rather pay for taxpayer-funded contraceptives than all the programs mentioned. Is it a perfect solution? Nope.
Roo_ster's solution would probably bring up eugenics arguments. Personally, if it was voluntary, I wouldn't see any ethical problems with it. I plan on getting snipped in the near future myself.
The intent is not *-genic, but taxpayer relief. Also, I think it might help those truly working to get out of poverty.
-
Why not require everyone to use birth control and get a permit to have a kid? :police:
I'm sure the Supreme Court would go along ... call it a tax or something.
-
Why not require everyone to use birth control and get a permit to have a kid? :police:
I'm sure the Supreme Court would go along ... call it a tax or something.
Problem is, governments would be handing out the permits. So there would be corruption, bribery, favor trading, gerrymandering, red lining, unions, and other bad things in short order.
-
I reject the false choice fallacy that says we must either provide free birth control or else pay higher welfare costs.
So from that standpoint, you should be in favor of any measures that reduce the total cost of Government support; i.e.: making more welfare babies, correct? If a small amount of Government expenditure reduces the total financial burden, I would think that is a concept that everyone should support.
If the goal is to reduce cost of supporting welfare babies, just do it directly. It's an arbitrary choice how much we pay for welfare babies, so let's just pay less for them. No need to mess about with free birth control.
This is my POV. I'd rather pay for taxpayer-funded contraceptives than all the programs mentioned. Is it a perfect solution? Nope.
I'd rather pay neither.
-
HTG, while you are busy rejecting the false choice fallacies and preferring not to pay either for birth control or welfare babies, what is your proposal instead to deal with the real world problem? Or do you not get bogged down in details?
-
Personal accountability and properly aligned incentives would go a long way towards solving these problems. Private charities can handle what's left.
-
Problem is, governments would be handing out the permits. So there would be corruption, bribery, favor trading, gerrymandering, red lining, unions, and other bad things in short order.
Only if the right people are not in charge :P
-
Personal accountability and properly aligned incentives would go a long way towards solving these problems. Private charities can handle what's left.
What are those incentives, then? Let me describe one of my patients to you that one of my social workers has been dealing with: 22 year old white female, on welfare, unmarried, four children, none of the fathers are around, has been addicted to heroin for five years and now has Hep C, two unsuccessful stints in rehab, her parents sold their car and have been slowly doling out the money to her so that she would not have to go back to prostitution to buy the heroin, parents have just discovered that she has been turning tricks on the side and now the patient and her parents want us to start prescribing her opiates so she can stop using heroin and turning tricks. Which we are not going to do.
Let me know how you would incentivize this patient to increase her personal accountability.
-
What are those incentives, then? Let me describe one of my patients to you that one of my social workers has been dealing with: 22 year old white female, on welfare, unmarried, four children, none of the fathers are around, has been addicted to heroin for five years and now has Hep C, two unsuccessful stints in rehab, her parents sold their car and have been slowly doling out the money to her so that she would not have to go back to prostitution to buy the heroin, parents have just discovered that she has been turning tricks on the side and now the patient and her parents want us to start prescribing her opiates so she can stop using heroin and turning tricks. Which we are not going to do.
Let me know how you would incentivize this patient to increase her personal accountability.
Spanking ??? =D
-
^^^ Geez, I wonder. She has probably already incurred more healthcare costs at age 22 than I will ever incur in my life, unless I end up needing a heart transplant or something. All her costs either paid for by the State of Washington or the healthcare providers eating the cost as bad debt. Not to mention the kids as a cost center.
-
Perhaps we should start at the beginning. You seem to take as a given that your patient's situation somehow represents an obligation on the part of the tax payers. Can you explain why?
-
Or, start at the beginning of the beginning. If the social welfare net was not so vast and unaccountable, would there be so many people like her to begin with? If the schools were more accountable to local control than to federal rules and federal money, would there be so many people like her to begin with?
-
Maybe we should legalize prostitution to help out single mothers :angel:
-
Perhaps we should start at the beginning. You seem to take as a given that your patient's situation somehow represents an obligation on the part of the tax payers. Can you explain why?
Simple. As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets. And no private charities have stepped forward to support her. Can you suggest a viable alternative that can be implemented in the real world in today's political and social climate?
-
Or, start at the beginning of the beginning. If the social welfare net was not so vast and unaccountable, would there be so many people like her to begin with? If the schools were more accountable to local control than to federal rules and federal money, would there be so many people like her to begin with?
I am eager to hear your explanation of how the schools are to blame for this sort of person, and how local control would prevent this.
-
Simple. As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets. And no private charities have stepped forward to support her. Can you suggest a viable alternative that can be implemented in the real world in today's political and social climate?
Have you asked any private charities?
How many private charities has she already been through, wore out, lied to, cheated, and turned against her?
"As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets."
In that case, we can shut down all the .gov organizations, and let her be cared for by whoever steps in.
-
I am eager to hear your explanation of how the schools are to blame for this sort of person, and how local control would prevent this.
Helps to look at the big picture, and not just react because your wife works at a school, and therefore I hurted your feels.
-
Simple. As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets. And no private charities have stepped forward to support her. Can you suggest a viable alternative that can be implemented in the real world in today's political and social climate?
Indeed not. All the more reason to trust the civil society can handle it.
Tell me again, why are the taxpayers are on the hook for this woman? If anything, the generous taxpayer-funded benefits she already receives, and their apparent failure to date to get her on her feet, argue strongly against government checks as a good solution.
Perhaps we should look for better solutions. Unless you think it's ok that her life is still a trainwreck...?
-
Helps to look at the big picture, and not just react because your wife works at a school, and therefore I hurted your feels.
Come on now, don't cop out. Explain why the schools are accountable for these people. Don't handwave the issue away.
-
Heh. That cuts both ways.
Explain why the taxpayers are accountable for these people. Don't just handwave the issue away.
-
Indeed not. All the more reason to trust the civil society can handle it.
Tell me again, why are the taxpayers are on the hook for this woman? If anything, the generous taxpayer-funded benefits she already receives, and their apparent failure to date to get her on her feet, argue strongly against government checks as a good solution.
Perhaps we should look for better solutions. Unless you think it's ok that her life is still a trainwreck...?
So please tell us what is your better solution? Be specific.
-
What are those incentives, then? Let me describe one of my patients to you that one of my social workers has been dealing with: 22 year old white female, on welfare, unmarried, four children, none of the fathers are around, has been addicted to heroin for five years and now has Hep C, two unsuccessful stints in rehab, her parents sold their car and have been slowly doling out the money to her so that she would not have to go back to prostitution to buy the heroin, parents have just discovered that she has been turning tricks on the side and now the patient and her parents want us to start prescribing her opiates so she can stop using heroin and turning tricks. Which we are not going to do.
Let me know how you would incentivize this patient to increase her personal accountability.
Honest question: do you think the availability of free birth control is what is stopping this woman from being childless and STD free? Last I checked there are a number of places that provide no cost to the individual birth control: I know the free STD clinic at a building I used to work at did.
-
So please tell us what is your better solution? Be specific.
I'm not sure I have time tonight for a lengthy discussion.
But can we agree that even without a lengthy explanation from me, there's still no good reason why we should hit up the taxpayers whenever someone gets themselves into trouble?
Rejecting bad solutions doesn't solve the problem, but it does advance the process.
-
Honest question: do you think the availability of free birth control is what is stopping this woman from being childless and STD free? Last I checked there are a number of places that provide no cost to the individual birth control: I know the free STD clinic at a building I used to work at did.
Oh no, not at all. In regards to this particular patient, I have not the faintest idea what is the funding sources for her birth control (if any) or if we provide it. This patient story does not really apply to the original post about the article on free birth control and behavior. It is more a response to the premise that personal accountability, responsibility and private charities, as opposed to government social services, can solve these issues. When people make those sort of statements, I suspect that they may not have a whole lot of experience in actually dealing with people similar to my patient.
-
I'm not sure I have time tonight for a lengthy discussion.
But can we agree that even without a lengthy explanation from me, there's still no good reason why we should hit up the taxpayers whenever someone gets themselves into trouble?
Absolutely. State support should be a last resort. Bring back the work farms, I say.
-
Oh no, not at all. In regards to this particular patient, I have not the faintest idea what is the funding sources for her birth control (if any) or if we provide it. This patient story does not really apply to the original post about the article on free birth control and behavior. It is more a response to the premise that personal accountability, responsibility and private charities, as opposed to government social services, can solve these issues. When people make those sort of statements, I suspect that they may not have a whole lot of experience in actually dealing with people similar to my patient.
With all due respect, I don't see that story as making a compelling case for government social services solving that issue either. Perhaps there is no true "solution" to such people, and all we can do is attempt to reduce the damage they do to those around them?
-
Personal accountability and properly aligned incentives would go a long way towards solving these problems. Private charities can handle what's left.
Welfare is here to stay. Either we wean them off the test or just let more of them be produced.
Get your head of the sand.
-
Perhaps we should start at the beginning. You seem to take as a given that your patient's situation somehow represents an obligation on the part of the tax payers. Can you explain why?
That genie is out of the bottle. They vote in higher numbers than us. Reality is a harsh mistress.
-
Oh, I agree completely. It's probably not possible to eliminate the welfare state now.
-
Come on now, don't cop out. Explain why the schools are accountable for these people. Don't handwave the issue away.
Guffaw. You'll notice I didn't blame the schools. I blamed federal meddling in the schools, which can't help but degrade them.
Are you seriously suggesting that a better education would not help people to grow into useful adults? Do you not think that better schooling would result in more prosperous citizens, thereby reducing poverty, and its associated ills?
And like I said, big picture. It's only one small part of what's wrong. I could just as easily have blamed government regulations (prosperity again), a culture that fails to properly disincentive fornication or drug use, and a hundred other things.
Oh, and since you're demanding an answer to your question, I will demand a response to my points below.
Have you asked any private charities?
How many private charities has she already been through, wore out, lied to, cheated, and turned against her?
"As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets."
In that case, we can shut down all the .gov organizations, and let her be cared for by whoever steps in.
-
With all due respect, I don't see that story as making a compelling case for government social services solving that issue either. Perhaps there is no true "solution" to such people, and all we can do is attempt to reduce the damage they do to those around them?
This, I think is a key point: there are some people, that for whatever reason, cannot be extricated from the safety net. And it is perhaps a measure of our society of how we treat such people: with dignity or denigration. I have been around long enough to see such people and realize that for some things within and without my span of control, there but for the grace of God go I.
-
So please tell us what is your better solution? Be specific.
Let her die in the street. That is her goal, whether she admits it or not. You can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved, all they do is drag you and everyone else around the down with them.
Remove the children, they can go to the grandparents or other family, just like what used to happen, baring that, then foster care. Through a private charity.
-
I have been around long enough to see such people and realize that for some things within and without my span of control, there but for the grace of God go I.
Yeah not so much. The o2 thief you describe sounds like she had many off ramps she refused to take on her trip to degeneracy town. More likely low impulse control and a strong short term time preference than a lock of grace of god.
The external locus of control argument is hokum for the vast majority. Yes the contemporary war on decency and values does make it harder for the slow or ignorant to figure out what is more likely to result in destitution and degeneracy but they can still learn from the pain they get from choosing poorly. Assuming no agency of folks who make poor decisions is belittling of their humanity.
-
This, I think is a key point: there are some people, that for whatever reason, cannot be extricated from the safety net. And it is perhaps a measure of our society of how we treat such people: with dignity or denigration. I have been around long enough to see such people and realize that for some things within and without my span of control, there but for the grace of God go I.
I do not think allowing people to suffer the natural consequences of their actions is denigration. In fact, I dare say that by enabling bad behavior we see more of it.
-
Oh, I agree completely. It's probably not possible to eliminate the welfare state now.
Giving the dependent class a way to not make more dependents might be a start to eliminating the welfare state.
My thoughts on the consequences of going to Uncle Sugar with your hand out are radically un-libertarian, but I believe if you want it "free", there should be severe consequences to your freedom.
-
Giving the dependent class a way to not make more dependents might be a start to eliminating the welfare state.
My thoughts on the consequences of going to Uncle Sugar with your hand out are radically un-libertarian, but I believe if you want it "free", there should be severe consequences to your freedom.
You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.
The problem is not lack of access to birth control. The dependent class already has easy access to birth control. The problem is that they don't care to use it.
-
I do not think allowing people to suffer the natural consequences of their actions is denigration. In fact, I dare say that by enabling bad behavior we see more of it.
The highest calling of some people is to be a bad example for others.
Oh, I agree completely. It's probably not possible to eliminate the welfare state now.
Complete economic collapse ;)
-
You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.
The problem is not lack of access to birth control. The dependent class already has easy access to birth control. The problem is that they don't care to use it.
Take one aspirin, and hold it between your knees. :lol:
-
You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.
The problem is not lack of access to birth control. The dependent class already has easy access to birth control. The problem is that they don't care to use it.
In a relatively unusual turn, I agree completely with this statement. As I said I can think of a few places to get condoms for free, and they're not exactly usuriously expensive to start with. I really find it hard to believe that tax payer supplied condoms will have any difference in birth rates amongst the FSA.
-
In a relatively unusual turn, I agree completely with this statement. As I said I can think of a few places to get condoms for free, and they're not exactly usuriously expensive to start with. I really find it hard to believe that tax payer supplied condoms will have any difference in birth rates amongst the FSA.
I suspect the concept is 'harm reduction' in that if a small expenditure ends up preventing a much larger expense down the road, even if this happens rarely, the numbers pencil out. Good examples of this are needle exchange programs, in reducing the spread of Hep C and HIV, which are extremely expensive to treat, and the Seattle program of providing free or very low cost housing to chronic street inebriates.
I am familar with the Seattle program which started after Seattle Fire and Harborview Hospital started crunching data on the number of 911 calls and ER visits for 'man down' calls. A significant percentage of these calls were for people found drunk and unresponsive in downtown Seattle. Some of these people were frequent flyers who would rack up dozens of calls, lots of ER visits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncompensated ER bills each year that was either written off by the hospital or paid by the city or county. So the city of Seattle built an apartment/assisted living building to provide housing for these people and essentially a safe place to drink in their rooms as opposed to on the street. Counseling and treatment is available to the residents, but I am told that few avail themselves of it. As a result, the chronic street inebriates who live there have a far fewer number of 'man down' calls and ER visits has dropped a great deal, resulting in a net savings to the city, county and hospital. There was some protests with the concept, similiar to what you see in this thread, but at the end of the day, this tax expenditure has had a great return on investment. I think this is a great use of tax dollars solely from the financial standpoint. I have read that other cities are doing similar programs.
-
Oh no, not at all. In regards to this particular patient, I have not the faintest idea what is the funding sources for her birth control (if any) or if we provide it. This patient story does not really apply to the original post about the article on free birth control and behavior. It is more a response to the premise that personal accountability, responsibility and private charities, as opposed to government social services, can solve these issues. When people make those sort of statements, I suspect that they may not have a whole lot of experience in actually dealing with people similar to my patient.
As I think someone may have stated above, freedom is not a utopia. There will always be people who are, as this woman seems to be, determined to fail. No set of laws will ever stop such people. Under an ideal political system, such people will be less common, but many will still take advantage of the freedom to fail.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that a better education would not help people to grow into useful adults? Do you not think that better schooling would result in more prosperous citizens, thereby reducing poverty, and its associated ills?
Exactly; IMO, a large part of the reason that so many jobs require a college degree these days is that so many people manage to graduate from high school marginally literate, and completely incompetent at even the skills they were supposed to have gained in 6th grade.
-
Exactly; IMO, a large part of the reason that so many jobs require a college degree these days is that so many people manage to graduate from high school marginally literate, and completely incompetent at even the skills they were supposed to have gained in 6th grade.
The sad part is plenty of folks manage to get a degree with the same lack of basic skills.
-
I suspect the concept is 'harm reduction' in that if a small expenditure ends up preventing a much larger expense down the road, even if this happens rarely, the numbers pencil out. Good examples of this are needle exchange programs, in reducing the spread of Hep C and HIV, which are extremely expensive to treat, and the Seattle program of providing free or very low cost housing to chronic street inebriates.
I am familar with the Seattle program which started after Seattle Fire and Harborview Hospital started crunching data on the number of 911 calls and ER visits for 'man down' calls. A significant percentage of these calls were for people found drunk and unresponsive in downtown Seattle. Some of these people were frequent flyers who would rack up dozens of calls, lots of ER visits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncompensated ER bills each year that was either written off by the hospital or paid by the city or county. So the city of Seattle built an apartment/assisted living building to provide housing for these people and essentially a safe place to drink in their rooms as opposed to on the street. Counseling and treatment is available to the residents, but I am told that few avail themselves of it. As a result, the chronic street inebriates who live there have a far fewer number of 'man down' calls and ER visits has dropped a great deal, resulting in a net savings to the city, county and hospital. There was some protests with the concept, similiar to what you see in this thread, but at the end of the day, this tax expenditure has had a great return on investment. I think this is a great use of tax dollars solely from the financial standpoint. I have read that other cities are doing similar programs.
I'm familiar with that program, and afaik it has indeed been a net positive in terms of costs to the city. But that's nothing like providing free birth control.
-
What about buying drugs from other countries ("foreign aid") and giving them free to addicts so they don't have to steal ???
:lol: :angel:
-
I'm familiar with that program, and afaik it has indeed been a net positive in terms of costs to the city. But that's nothing like providing free birth control.
The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc. I disagree with that premise.
-
The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc. I disagree with that premise.
Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away. The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance. They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it. Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen. ;/
-
I really wish if we were 'forced' to have public assistance we would actually be pragmatic about it. I am for giving public shelters, or any other public aid, some reasonably strict requirements. No drugs, no raping, no stealing ect. And actually mean it. Let's change the idea of the safety net from the current hammock to a leg up. Ironically, I think that means assistance for longer periods of overlap (get a job, lose support when you get a paycheck or two, not when you first get hired). Since we are squandering the resources, free gov cheese for anyone willing to publicly accept it; minimum sustenance at maximum ease just so we can maintain the appropriate level of moral and systemic condemnation of criminals... who may or may not be ground up into gov cheese. :police:
Cannibal Utopia
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m4xcr6z8VZ1qd9q0vo2_1280.png&hash=b097ee5698ae0d34b637477f30506a81b27b32d4)
-
Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away. The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance. They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it. Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen. ;/
Disagreeing with your perspective is not hand-waving. Dismissing other people's opinions with trite phrases is hand-waving.
-
The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc. I disagree with that premise.
Yes.
Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away. The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance. They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it. Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen. ;/
You keep waving away anyone who doesn't accept your premises. Whyizzat? If you're going to insist that everyone think like you do or else be summarily dismissed, then why bother with the discussion at all?
Please don't take this the wrong way. It's an honest question, and I would genuinely like to know the answer.
-
Ahem. To the gentleman who seems to think everyone who disagrees with him owes him a white paper on their proposed solution.
Oh, and since you're demanding an answer to your question, I will demand a response to my points below.
Have you asked any private charities [to help the lady you mentioned]?
How many private charities has she already been through, wore out, lied to, cheated, and turned against her?
"As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets."
In that case, we can shut down all the .gov organizations, and let her be cared for by whoever steps in.
So how many charities have turned her down? Surely no charities have refused to help, since our society is "not willing to let her die in the streets."
-
You are correct in that I insist on injecting a note of reality into the discussion. Saying that 'I don't agree with the premise of (insert issue: welfare moms, providing disability paychecks to middle-aged white males with spurious claims, etc)' as if that should solve the problem ignores the real world. These things do occur and have to be dealt with in the real world. To try to dismiss that is handwaving at its best and is an informal fallacy.
Anyone who states that (welfare moms, providing disability paychecks to middle-aged white males with spurious claims, etc.) is not the taxpayer's problem is choosing to ignore the reality of the situation. We can certainly argue and disagree on the scope, nature or origin of such problems, but to pretend they don't exist, they don't have to be addressed or you can make them go away by 'disagreeing with the premise' is ludicrous.
Don't just bitch about the problem, come up with solutions.
-
Ahem. To the gentleman who seems to think everyone who disagrees with him owes him a white paper on their proposed solution.
I am still waiting to hear you explain how 'local control of the schools' as opposed to state or Federal control will solve these problems.
-
Seriously?!
We're not saying these issues shouldn't be addressed. We're saying maybe they shouldn't be addressed in the one and only way you're willing to consider.
-
And what is that one and only way?
-
Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services, or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?
-
I am still waiting to hear you explain how 'local control of the schools' as opposed to state or Federal control will solve these problems.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=43487.msg886387#msg886387
Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services, or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?
And any desire to have this real discussion of this real issue means you are a heartless monster who wants children to starve. There have been a few occasions where I've been able to tell people about how our as is system simply deepens the poverty pit and dependency; but far more often I get an emotional attack that redirects and re-frames the discussion to my lack of personal experience as a directly corollary to someone else's PERSONAL experience, therefore making any assertions outside of said PERSONAL (Exclusive to one other person on earth) experience, invalid. Likewise, my inability to get pregnant negates my ability to speak on contraceptives in any manner ect.
I really hate this notion of needing to parade the most 'authentic' voice of anything in politics. Most egregious in my opinion is the flying the survivors, anti-gun only, of mass shootings around the country.
Emotion and PR blackmail to shut down any real discussion of any real issue.
-
We can certainly argue and disagree on the scope, nature or origin of such problems, but to pretend they don't exist, they don't have to be addressed or you can make them go away by 'disagreeing with the premise' is ludicrous.
When people willfully misrepresent the views of others on this forum, I will ask them to stop lying.
Stop lying.
We have told you how to address it, part of which means allowing some people to die in the street (though probably fewer people than are actually dying in the street today, with this warm and fuzzy government assistance). You insist this is not reasonable, for the laughably ironic reason that "our society won't let that happen." What farce. If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course. I thank you for demolishing your own point of view.
-
Come on, buddy, don't just copy and paste. Tell me your ideas to fix these problems! My experience tells me that there is a percentage of these people who cannot or will not help themselves, there are insufficient private charitable resources to support these people, and in the real world, we cannot tell them to just go off and die, leaving government as the safety net. What can we do to solve the problem? Do we just accept that there is an irreducible percentage of the poor that will be always be on the government dole, which is my opinion, or are there other answers? Do you have better or different experience on this?
-
When people willfully misrepresent the views of others on this forum, I will ask them to stop lying.
Stop lying.
We have told you how to address it, part of which means allowing some people to die in the street (though probably fewer people than are actually dying in the street today, with this warm and fuzzy government assistance). You insist this is not reasonable, for the laughably ironic reason that "our society won't let that happen." What farce. If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course. I thank you for demolishing your own point of view.
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.
-
Come on, buddy, don't just copy and paste. Tell me your ideas to fix these problems! My experience tells me that there is a percentage of these people who cannot or will not help themselves, there are insufficient private charitable resources to support these people, and in the real world, we cannot tell them to just go off and die, leaving government as the safety net. What can we do to solve the problem? Do we just accept that there is an irreducible percentage of the poor that will be always be on the government dole, which is my opinion, or are there other answers? Do you have better or different experience on this?
The copypasta speaks true.
If it helps you, people on govt. assistance are not theoretical to me. I know several of them, mostly through church. I have been to some of their homes. I don't claim that this makes me an expert, but I also reserve the right to have opinions, even more realistic opinions, than those who may have grounds for expert status.
There are insufficient charitable resources because big govt. reduces the prosperity we might otherwise enjoy, while breeding a vastly larger population of poor folk that can't, or won't help themselves. To twist the knife further, our society (that won't stand by and let people die in the street) is perfectly happy to pass minimum wage laws; so we may stand idly by while people can't find work.
Deregulation, lower taxes, and less social welfare spending would begin to solve the problem, but there is no panacea, and no easy way to do this. Society will have to change. We used to be openly racist. But we changed. We used to hide or tolerate child abuse. But we changed. We used to prohibit concealed carry. But we changed. We didn't change enough on any of those issues, but we have seen improvement. There's no reason, no excuse, for not changing our current society into one that promotes hard work, personal responsibility, the importance of the nuclear family, and the many other qualities that will reduce our dependence on government.
You could ask me for more a detailed proposal, but that would be a bit silly. This is an internet forum; not a public policy think tank. If you want to pay me to work full time on proposals for a better world, then let's make a deal. Until then, you get what you paid for. There are plenty of libertarian/conservative scholars that have done the research you're looking for.
-
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.
This is the kind of lying I'm talking about. Nobody said that some people should be "selected" to die. That's some pretty malicious stuff to throw around.
-
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.
In point of fact, these folks would not die due to lack of gov't assistance. They would die, in the vast majority of cases, from the consequences of their decisions and actions.
Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services, or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?
Ned has your number, Mr Emotional Blackmail.
FTR, I have worked for a state housing authority, maintaining "public" housing. It was very educational, but maybe not in the way you might think or hope for. I also volunteered time and materials and skills to a ministry dedicated to feeding and helping homeless drunks & addicts. The sort of place so hard up, they thought MY carpentry skills were pretty good and of value. Same thing for another ministry in another part of the city. Similar deal for another with a focus on the aged indigent not long for this plane of existence.
If I took one thing away from it all, it is this: Taxpayer monies spent by gov't, collected with the threat of violence, and spent on social programs is POISON. It will destroy the recipient and will ensure that the problem grows and spreads to folks who, barring the existence of such gov't largesse, would not otherwise allow themselves to get into similar straights. In short, such programs are EVIL and spread misery so some folks who can not think beyond the immediate consequences can get a warm and fuzzy feeling...and preen their moral superiority in front of others.
Lying about what others wrote is not gentleman-like behavior. It does seem to be SOP these, days, though.
-
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.
It has nothing to do with selecting who will "die".
It has everything to do with buying votes.
-
When there are incentives to certain behaviors we see more of that behavior. Currently we provide incentives to people who choose not to work, to have lots of childrenoutside of marriage with lots of different people, and to sell drugs. So we see lots of those things among thr subset of thr population susceptible to incentives.
-
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.
Exactly who is doing the selecting? I don't see where "society"would be running around selecting random derelicts off the street to stood against the wall.
What I see would be people self selecting themselves for an early demise by the choices they make. I'm all for giving folks a 2nd or even 3rd go at a hand up but the by the 4th and 5th and nth time around I get to the point of "screw em".
-
Big government is perpetuating and creating more of a problem with its inflationary money policy and minimum wages. The two go together, the latter being a response to the former.
It should not surprise us that big government types intuitively understand the poor are big governments responsibility, after all, many are poor due to big government policies. Of course they never actually come to that conclusion; they instead appeal to emotionalism, prescribing more coercive wealth transfers. Not even being aware that coercive wealth transfer is the root of the problem to begin with.
As to the arguments preceding my post. I think MillCreek is just asking for what type of bridge policies should we promote that will get us from having a large dependency class to those same folks realizing that they now must learn to have some responsibility for themselves.
Reign in the credit expansion money policy.
Freeze federal spending at current levels across the board, eliminating the automatic budget increases of baseline budgeting.
Start reigning in corporate and industry subsidies.
Fast track regulatory processes for energy industry expansion.
Lower corporate and individual tax rates dramatically.
Eliminate minimum wage laws
Bring back flop houses (stop zoning them out of existence).
Stop the revolving door of violent offenders getting out of jail and recommitting violent crimes. Punish the repeat violent offenders with very long sentences.
Stop imprisoning drug addicts (unless they commit violence). Mandatory halfway house sentences with drug treatment combined with public service.
Welfare reform that eliminates any incentives for having more children.
Wave all taxes and fees associated with buying a vehicle for those under the poverty level.
There are lists and lists of market based liberty respecting solutions to welfare state problems. Problems of poverty are all interconnected with economic policy. Throwing more government resources at poverty hasn't worked out well looking at levels of dependency these days.
-
This is the kind of lying I'm talking about. Nobody said that some people should be "selected" to die. That's some pretty malicious stuff to throw around.
Even when it is demonstrably self selected?
I dunno, isn't that what the extremes of intervention come down to? Through my profession I've met two folks on public assistance who, before hitting 30, have used up enough resources not their own to literally put my entire high school class through college. I find this extreme desire to keep consequences of bad choices away to be perverse. There are folks in bad circumstance, even folks who have made a few excusable bad choices, and I refer to neither. I think of those two and imagine how many others there must be, for whom our government has driven so many of the rest of us into poverty and otherwise robbed opportunity and prosperity, so they may continue to harm the lives of others through their direct actions and resource squandering.
My own thought is if you take the gov away private charity steps up and does a far more effective job; and if such folks who are called to serve turn you away, as do all others, thems be the breaks. Bad as anyone may be, I don't see the line being drawn at food, shelter, or basic medical care. Long term care (or medications not administered on site), loans, training programs, care packages; this is where folks get cut off and we are all better for it.
-
Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services, or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?
I've volunteered with local charities. I've worked through several different churches over the years. I've worked in professions that placed me into the homes of many people living in poverty. I lived right at the poverty line myself for a couple of years when first starting out. I've tried, and mostly failed, to help a few close friends overcome serious life problems.
I know a thing or two about what I'm saying. Believe it or not, my disagreeing with you is NOT the result of complete ignorance on my part.
My experiences inform my opinions, I've seen what works and what doesn't. The biggest lesson I've learned is that third parties can't really help people with their personal problems. People must help themselves. You can't do it for them.
What works is people making a serious choice to change their lifestyle* and behavior, and then sticking with it come hell or high water. This seems to work no matter how big their problems and how great the setbacks along the way. You can't keep people down once they start making the right choices.
What doesn't work is just about everything else. Among the many ineffective solutions, and apropos for this discussion, is throwing huge scads of money at the problem. You can't spend your way out of this sort of mess. Lord knows, we've tried. Without that commitment to change, all the money that we spend will be for naught.
Where does this idea come from that society's problems can be solved simply by spending lots of money? We know this is ridiculous if applied to our personal lives. It's practically cliche to say "spending money won't solve your problems". Yet somehow people think that what doesn't work for us as individuals somehow will work if applied wholesale across the entire country.
I understand why the politicians peddle this garbage. They're trying to buy votes, they know the score, they don't actually believe that they're solving problems. But so many regular folks buy into this stuff. How can people be so naive?
FedGov is not in a position to provide effective help for people like this. FedGov doesn't have the right tools available, doesn't have any core competency in addressing these issues, doesn't have any understanding of these problems, lacks any sense of moral authority for convincing people to change and how. FedGov is a really, really poor choice for attacking these problems. The only thing FedGov can really do for social problems is spend other peoples money, and spending money doesn't work.
* Knowing how some folks react poorly to any mention of personal responsibility, I will instead use warm fuzzy euphemisms like "lifestyle" and "choices" and "behavior". It all means the same thing, but hopefully we can abvoid the baggage some have attached to the basic concept of personal responsibility.
-
I lived right at the poverty line myself for a couple of years when first starting out.
Big difference between being "poor" and just not having much money ;)
We had years of self employment where getting up to the official poverty line would have been a great improvement :lol:
Old song by Henson Cargill:
My father always taught me when you're broke, son, don't be poor
Never be a quitter but always be a doer
-
Yup. I didn't have any money, but I wasn't poor. I knew that if I took care of business it would only be temporary. I never felt like it was any real hardship.
-
Just catching up on this thread...
Big part of the problem is govt taking over the "social safety net" from private charities and foundations, then abusing it to buy votes and/or funnel public funds into the pockets of their cronies.
Self-destructive people, and folks who fall on hard times thru little-or-no fault of their own, are not totally fixable problems -- doesn't matter who is trying to do the fixing. At least private entities will *try* to fix what they can rather than just exploit the problem for political or personal gain. If you don't buy the corruption angle, how about the overhead costs?
My proposal is make charitable giving tax deductible even if one doesn't itemize. Heck, make the first $1000 eligible for a 50% tax credit.
-
If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course.
And society would do it in the effective, logical way; by not giving them one damn penny. Give them a week's food at a time, fill their gas tank, pay their rent/utilities/medical bills directly if you want them to have those things, but don't give them anything they can easily trade for drugs or sell for enough to buy drugs. (For the record, I figured up my weekly stored food needs a couple weeks ago by the simple expedient of spending a normal week eating from cans. Grand total to restock a week's worth of chili, canned spaghetti, canned veggies, etc. was about $15. Good luck selling that and getting much crack/meth/whatever.)
-
The biggest lesson I've learned is that third parties can't really help people with their personal problems. People must help themselves. You can't do it for them.
Dear Lord in Heaven, THIS. 1000x this. For both financial / lifestyle issues and interpersonal issues.
* Knowing how some folks react poorly to any mention of personal responsibility, I will instead use warm fuzzy euphemisms like "lifestyle" and "choices" and "behavior". It all means the same thing, but hopefully we can abvoid the baggage some have attached to the basic concept of personal responsibility.
The inability to mention personal responsibility without getting flack in response is a sign that the rot is deep, deep into our culture.
-
If one were to limit things to the truly, inveterately indigent and limit the aid to things like pauper's graves and .gov cheese with no trade value then that's one thing. At some point either the .gov provides some minimal form of assistance or the .gov pays to lock the problem in jail or a sanitorium to keep them from hassling the citizenry. And some forms of assistance can be cheaper than prisons.
But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.
-
If one were to limit things to the truly, inveterately indigent and limit the aid to things like pauper's graves and .gov cheese with no trade value then that's one thing. At some point either the .gov provides some minimal form of assistance or the .gov pays to lock the problem in jail or a sanitorium to keep them from hassling the citizenry. And some forms of assistance can be cheaper than prisons.
But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.
Or it could merely be as far away as financial collapse. When the taxpayers are making so little tax receipts can not cover non-controversial gov't tasks, this sort of decadent spending will stop.
-
Or it could merely be as far away as financial collapse. When the taxpayers are making so little tax receipts can not cover non-controversial gov't tasks, this sort of decadent spending will stop.
Do I really need to specify that if our system of government collapses it will change our governmental spending?
-
But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.
How about starting with it as a penal system? Get caught scamming the welfare system in any way whatsoever, and you go on direct minimum rations. No luxuries, no choices and nothing you can spend; just the basics delivered directly to you in small enough quantities that you're going to have to go hungry for a while before you have enough to sell. Seven HDRs per person per week or the equivalent in other foods, and a reasonable allowance for rent/utilities also paid directly by the administering agency. Basic cell phone and plan handled the same way, and either a gas card or bus pass depending on available public transportation and potential work schedule. (I have far less problem with extending this type of benefit in full to people working low-pay and/or low hour jobs than I do with the current system wasting ridiculously higher amounts on the lazy, while those who do find a crappy part time job are penalized for doing anything for themselves. Hell, I'd even settle for calling the food an entitlement that Bill Gates can pick up every week if he wants it. After all, HDRs are supposed to be about 1/5 the cost of MREs, so that would put them around $1.20 each in moderate bulk. Who knows what that would be at .gov levels of bulk purchase, but I'd bet we could feed every man woman and child in the country for what we currently spend. Just the ones who wouldn't care enough to go get it would save us a fortune.)
-
Roger your idea KD5NRH, but it will never happen. Policritters cannot buy votes with a scheme like that.
-
Roger your idea KD5NRH, but it will never happen. Policritters cannot buy votes with a scheme like that.
And yet no one asks if having a system that incentivized buying votes is the best choice. Instead we just spread democracy across the globe like settlers with smallpox infested blankets.