BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Sheltered life.

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Ganesh
13:17 / 12.02.02
Oh hell, WoI, please don't go the path of wounded sarcasm - not in a potentially interesting, on-topic thread. Haus generally doesn't do "courtesy": there's no reason why he should extend you any more "respect" than anyone else...

I think the general bone of contention is the idea that a distinction's being drawn between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. Much of the time, I personally find that a difficult distinction to make, and am interested in how other people do so - even if I don't always agree with them.

Re-engaging with the point, without sarcasm, why did the girl in the photo strike you as being as unequivocally deserving? Was it her age?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:19 / 12.02.02
Indeed. Especially as she *had* a "home to go to".

Exceptionally good point from W1rebaby, also, which I'd like to explore a little.

F'r example, one of the strands emerging is that there is a resistance to people seeing those receiving benefit spending "their" money on booze and fags. Now, to do so may not wise, but is it the place of the contributor to feel that direct connection to how the money, which has gone into the *project* and subsequently been reassigned, is spent? And if so, why do we not give the poor milk coupons, food coupons and no actual cash?

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]
 
 
passer
13:27 / 12.02.02
For the record, at least here in the US, food stamps do exactly that. They've electronic now to lessen your ability to trade them for "luxury" items. The program here has gone so far as to restrict what specific items you can buy. Certain name brands are too expensive for the government to subsidize.

It bothers me because it seems to smack of the whole we'll help you, but don't enjoy it too much and you'd best be ashamed of and grateful for the handout.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:29 / 12.02.02
{off-topic} I'm still bemused that people here seem to think that it's fine for Haus to call me a fuckwit.

I don't ask for more respect, I ask that I dodn't get less respect{return to topic.

The point seems to be missed here.

I don't think that this girl is more deserving. She is getting nothing and for whatever reasons cannot return home. Despite this the government will not provide for her health and safety.

This girl was equally deserving and yet is not treated as such. Part of this is a function of her age but this is not the reason I bought it up. I bought it up because it's important in explaining her situation of not recieving any aid.
 
 
BioDynamo
13:29 / 12.02.02
Solution here could be a guaranteed basic income. This is one of the political projects or demands that are being discussed in the social democratic areas of Europe, I don't know if you people have ever heard of it. Maybe the idea strikes you all as totally ludicrous.

The idea is that every person has a basic right to housing, food and health. This is true, just check the declaration of human rights. Absolute authority for everything.

So, just for existing, being a human being, you should be guaranteed to a certain amount of money. This is the praxis, if not theory, employed in the social democracies of Northern Europe: if you are in the shit, you will get money if you ask for it. Not a lot, but enough to live on, barely.

Now, in today's society there is a surplus of useless production, both material and intellectual. More work is being done than is necessary to uphold the system. This leads to unemployment.

According to the "old logic" of work-centered morality, if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. This led to the system of people being given social benefits only if they can prove that they have tried really hard to get a job, but still haven't succeeded. This lead to the creation of bureaucracy to control people and their employments.

Now that not everyone's "productive work" (be it in factory or office) is necessary, this bureaucracy could be done away with, freeing up resources to the people who need them. The result would be a system where everybody would get a certain amount of money just for existing. Then, for activity within the "third sector", doing cultural work, voluntary healthcare, any volunteer work, basically, you would get an additional sum of money. The smaller sum would be the "living minimum", the larger only slightly above this.

Oh, saying that this could not work is not true. This is was done explicitely for a time in Denmark, and the current system in the Nordic countries is very near to this, except that there still is a societal morality of "work=good, play=bad".

The benefits should be a greatly improved civil society, which in any case is responsible for a large amount of the work done today: homework, childcare, cultural work, healthcare and other sectors where people work voluntarily are not rewarded in any way, despite them being the very upholding factors of our society.
 
 
Ganesh
13:32 / 12.02.02
One element that touches on W1rebaby's (excellent) points and which I think is often neglected is the effect of giving on the giver. Is this, above all else, what defines the 'deserving' poor? For example, a young, attractive person behaving gratefully ("Gawd bless you, guvnor") is more likely to be seen as 'deserving' than an older, ungrateful recipient - regardless of what they actually spend the money on.

In other words, those of us who give do so 'selfishly' for the nice warm, glowy 'I'm a good person' feeling inside. If that doesn't happen (if they're insufficiently grateful, say), we view the donation as 'undeserved'. We don't want to give to a faceless "project"; we want to see and 'end result' and - regardless of how articifial it may or may not be - we want it to make us feel good about ourselves...

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:35 / 12.02.02
Funnily enough, I was going to mention the Nordic nations, and Norway in particular. Admittedly, Norway is inbeleivably wealthy as a nation, but personal taxation is organized in such a way that there is actually not a massive distinction in pay between many jobs. The pay-off comes in getting a "good place to live" - with a functioning health service, a functioning welfare state, a functioning infrastructure and so on.

Grotesque romanticism?
 
 
BioDynamo
13:35 / 12.02.02
Oh, the big challenge in the "guaranteed income" is to take the leap from the national to the global: demanding a guaranteed basic income for everybody in the world. That is a revolutionary project, even though it is not utopian, i.e. you can draw out a clear course of action to achieve this. Difficult, yes, but not utopian. Who's in?
 
 
w1rebaby
13:36 / 12.02.02
quote:is it the place of the contributor to feel that direct connection to how the money, which has gone into the *project* and subsequently been reassigned, is spent?

I think there's obviously a case that taxpayers should feel some connection to how taxes are spent - there does need to be some pressure on government to spend them efficiently.

However, I compare this direct connection that people feel with welfare to the enormous amount of waste and corruption that they are prepared to ignore in such areas as the military, bureaucracy, industry subsidy... because, I suppose, it's "hidden" i.e. you might have to read something to find out about it. Importantly, they are willing to shrug their shoulders and say "oh, what can you do, it's the system" in a way that they're not prepared to do with welfare.

I suppose really I'm just arguing for a certain amount of balance and realism in how different public projects are viewed.

I think that there is a certain amount of deliberate government maintenance of the stereotype, because it gives them a chance to cut welfare, aided by a certain media/societal viewpoint (feeding back into the earlier points I made about "self-reliance" etc.)

quote:And if so, why do we not give the poor milk coupons, food coupons and no actual cash?

I suspect that if there was a way to give coupons that was cost-efficient, it would be done. Certainly some benefits are effectively coupons, housing benefit, education etc. The govt here tried to give asylum seekers vouchers, of course, and that turned out to not solve the problem and also be more expensive than giving them cash. I think that changing the entire DSS to a voucher system would be too costly even to satisfy Mail readers.
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:40 / 12.02.02
quote:I'm willing to believe you've seen a "boatload" of benefit cheats (that's an odd turn of phrase, BTW...

sorry, what I mean is that Ive seen enough to know that not only does it go on, but its not exactly a difficult or rare occurrence

quote:So... I'm guessing there's either a difference in benefits systems in our respective countries or a difference in how we perceive others' lifestyles[quote]

probably both. to clarify, let me say that Im talking about american welfare, where a person recieves a monthly check and a sort of debit card thing (unless this method has changed recently, I dont know) to get groceries. I really know jackshit about your system, so Im sorry if things are being confused in the shuffle

here women are much more likely to get welfare than men, particularly if they have children. its restricted by how much you make (or dont), so some people simply dont work in order to receive the same amount of benefits.

my aunt has been on welfare for somewhere approaching (possibly exceeding) 18 years without working for more than a few months that entire time, and has had 3 children. I kid you not - they told her theyd cut off her benefits if she didnt get her tubes tied, so she did. there are about a dozen things wrong with this whole scenario

[quote]Good for you. It's not necessarily the best yardstick of what is and isn't 'deserving', though, is it? Should you have had to go through that?

not good at all. Im just saying Ive been down, and I know what it is like to be without. if you can manage to pull yourself out of a shit situation you should. but not everyone has the resources, and thats why welfare isnt necessarily such a bad concept. it was created to help people who have fallen on bad times get out before they get into worse times. but people abuse it

quote:Because "need" and "deserve" are not easily quanitifiable terms, yet they're loaded with value judgment. I'm arguing that it takes time and empathy to evaluate someone else's degree of need, and the fact that we tend to forgive 'benefit sponging' in our friends perhaps indicates a slight tendency to err on the side of demonising when one is not in full possession of the facts...

you are right on this, I agree with you. but there are plenty of situations where it is simple deceit and greed taking precedence over actual need. you dont need a car, new cds, or earrings. you need food and somewhere sheltered from the elements. you need running water and an opportunity to work. its a fairly simple notion, and I think most people grasp when they are taking advantage
 
 
Ganesh
13:43 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
I'm still bemused that people here seem to think that it's fine for Haus to call me a fuckwit.

Call him a fuckwit back. Just don't go on about it forever...

quote:I don't think that this girl is more deserving. She is getting nothing and for whatever reasons cannot return home. Despite this the government will not provide for her health and safety.

But what are her "whatever reasons"? As Flyboy points out, your second post in this thread seems to lambast other (perhaps even more absolutely) homeless individuals for being less deserving than the girl on the photograph - and I can't see how you reached such a straightforward distinction. Which made me wonder if it was her gender or age which made you see her as more needy or vulnerable.
 
 
BioDynamo
13:44 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Grotesque romanticism?

No.

Or, sorry, do I misunderstand you? It is not romanticism to say that Norway is a good place to live, it has exellent health care guaranteed to all, beautiful nature and lots of oil, being the main cause of the health and social services' high quality. Sure there are downsides, such as fairly xenophobic immigration policies and whaleing. But by distributing the massive income from these immensely rich areas (Norway, the USA, Saudiarabia, just about the whole of the western world and big areas of the rest of the world too) to the people who live inside and outside them, you could guarantee a pretty good standard of living for everyone. On the level of communist East Germany, I've heard it claimed. Sure, not everyone would own a car. But why should we?

Global income distribution.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:44 / 12.02.02
I've always loved the idea of a guaranteed basic income, Biodynamo, and I thank you for bringing it up.

But, neatly enough, the main opposition to such a scheme won't be about the main idea of it but who is "deserving" and "undeserving" of it, as Haus put it.

Surprisingly, (at least to me), in my experience it is the lower income people who have the most invested in classifying the poor into "deserving" and "undeserving" classes (and thus would also be more likely to oppose a general living wage).

I say "surprisingly" because it would seem that the rural working class would have the most to gain from a large scale redistribution of funds. But largely, it is upper middle class urban lefties who are most supportive of "welfare" programs.

So, why is it that working class people have bought into the American Dream of a sort of Calvinistic "possesing material wealth=deserving that wealth" equation?
 
 
w1rebaby
13:46 / 12.02.02
quote:We don't want to give to a faceless "project"; we want to see and 'end result' and - regardless of how articifial it may or may not be - we want it to make us feel good about ourselves...

Quite true, and I think this illustrates just why no society can afford to rely on charitable donations to solve "basic" problems that we think have to be solved. Things that make us feel good are not necessarily those that solve anything.

Personalisation is very important in making us feel good, as well - giving £1 to a homeless charity may well do more good overall than giving it to an individual homeless person, but which one feels better?
Maybe that's one of the reasons that people personalise welfare. When they hear about good things that it has done, they grasp at any personalisation that they can get, to feel better about it themselves ("I helped build that school"). Then, when they hear about people abusing the system they still have that personal attitude.
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:56 / 12.02.02
quote:If you were aware that by claiming benefits you could give your child a higher standard of living than she currently has, even though you were currently able to feed and clothe her to an adequate degree, would you do it? Would you feel able to condemn anyone who did, on the grounds that they are using resources earmarked for people who cannot provide that adequate level of feeding and clothing

I make an attempt to never condemn anyone without knowing the circumstances, but often fail miserably. so I wont deny that bit. what Ive got issues with is the deceit - Im talking about people who sneak and lie and in that way, take from others. this is unacceptable, regardless of your ultimate intent.

Ive worked two jobs to pay my bills - its not easy, and not everyone is able. I think a person should do what they are able to do, work and struggle, compromise and sacrifice if neccessary. is that what we SHOULD HAVE to do? no, but thats an unpleasant little side effect to life, sometimes it sucks

quote:And, of so, why shoudl you not contribute the surplus from your wages after providing an adequate standard of living to ensure that others can as well? If the pool of cash is too small, why not deepen it by more resdistributive taxation?

I dont have a problem with others having more than I do. I should have worked hard in school, gone to college, yada yada. but I climbed to a decent job and I plan on going farther. Im not the most inventive, brilliant or ambitious person, but I have to if I want. so I do

quote:On a broader level, should people with these networks be penalised financially for having friends?

I believe I covered this when I said "I had something that others didnt". its those "others" that I worry about, they are lacking because of someone in my position - of being able - taking adnvatage of the fact that the system will allow them to

quote:Because nobody has been in all of those places at the same time, and been able to compare and contrast

Ive never said otherwise. I just know that its wrong to take food from other peoples mouths when you are fully and completely able to provide for yourself. Im honestly surprised anyone would argue this point
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:57 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
{off-topic} I'm still bemused that people here seem to think that it's fine for Haus to call me a fuckwit.

Get a grip - I don't think it's fine, which is why my first 'intervention' post was aimed at both of you. If you must know, I'd also e-mailed Haus to tell him I'd rather he respond in a more constructive manner. However, it must be noted that he didn't call you a fuckwit per se, rather said that you had posted something that was fuckwitted - there is a difference, however slight, and I'd have taken a far dimmer view of his post if it had done the former. Also, he's more or less withdrawn the remark. Drop it.

Right, back on topic:

quote:I don't think that this girl is more deserving. She is getting nothing and for whatever reasons cannot return home. Despite this the government will not provide for her health and safety.

This girl was equally deserving and yet is not treated as such. Part of this is a function of her age but this is not the reason I bought it up. I bought it up because it's important in explaining her situation of not recieving any aid.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your concern for this girl's plight - I think what's provoked a reaction is the justaposition of this with some very harsh views on other people in a similar situation:

"what of all of those other people that made their beds that we've handed out to countless times because they're too fucking slack to help themselves... For years I've walked past people who have just opted to drop out. They continuously ask for money and for what? A place to live? Booze and drugs more like."

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
w1rebaby
13:58 / 12.02.02
quote:Admittedly, Norway is inbeleivably wealthy as a nation, but personal taxation is organized in such a way that there is actually not a massive distinction in pay between many jobs. The pay-off comes in getting a "good place to live" - with a functioning health service, a functioning welfare state, a functioning infrastructure and so on.

I always like to think that all of these factors feed into each other - good infrastructure and low wage differential result in economic success - but I admit I'm not informed enough about the history of the situation to be sure. Certainly I've never heard anything that contradicts the theory.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:59 / 12.02.02
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
(Edited to take into account Flyboy's post)

BK - So what if the welfare available for a person does not give them "food, shelter and a chance to work"? Or, slightly more complex, they need more than their current entitlement in order to place themselves in a situation where they can find work - what we in the wacky world of the corporation call "priming the pump"? Is there a case, in a Terry Thomas "Shooting Fish" sort of a way, for drainign a leetle beet more from the state in order to try to take yourself off its books?

Oh, and BioK9 - "Grotesque romanticism" was kind of rhetorical. I'm not ruling it out as a potential solution or a workable one at all. On a lesser level, I do very strongly support the idea of high taxation for the wealthy and high public spending for the disadvantaged.

W1rebaby - well, that and the absolute fuckloads of oil. Smiley.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]
 
 
Ganesh
14:00 / 12.02.02
Bitchiekittie: Okay, I know at least as much about your welfare system as you know about mine. I guess I'm uneasy with (what I perceive to be) your assertion that someone subsisting on state benefit somehow ought to live their life a certain way (no 'unnecessary' extravagances, procreation 'rights' restricted, etc). I'm not saying I'm not at least partially in agreement - it used to annoy me when certain patients of mine had whopping great family cars and three overseas holidays a year - but I'm aware that the whole thing of saying "because my taxes bankroll your lifestyle, you must live in a manner of which I approve" is an extremely morally dubious path.

I'm not sure how these moral questions should be resolved, but I have problems with equating welfare with charity. As W1rebaby pointed out, our reasons for investing (emotionally) in charities are at least partly self-gratifying - and I don't think Governmental benefits should be viewed in the same way at all...
 
 
Ganesh
14:03 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Point of information - I did not call him a fuckwit. I said his contention was fuckwitted. Very different thing.

Apologies. I'm an inattentive fuckwit.

  
 
BioDynamo
14:17 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Oh, and BioK9 - "Grotesque romanticism" was kind of rhetorical. I'm not ruling it out as a potential solution or a workable one at all. On a lesser level, I do very strongly support the idea of high taxation for the wealthy and high public spending for the disadvantaged.


Just want to point out I'm someone else than BioK9.. I think I was first.

Yeah, high taxation of the rich, absolutely a minimum demand. To achieve it we should start out demanding the impossible: absolute taxation on everything. That's one of my favourite definitions of anarchy, by they way..
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:22 / 12.02.02
quote:
BK - So what if the welfare available for a person does not give them "food, shelter and a chance to work"? Or, slightly more complex, they need more than their current entitlement in order to place themselves in a situation where they can find work - what we in the wacky world of the corporation call "priming the pump"? Is there a case, in a Terry Thomas "Shooting Fish" sort of a way, for drainign a leetle beet more from the state in order to try to take yourself off its books?

here, if you have full welfare benefits, this includes subsidized housing. its all available, and you can even get government grants for college courses.

Ive also allowed for the fact that the system is set up in such a way that it DOES keep people trapped in its services - in some ways restricting a person from finding work for fear they will get cut off completely.

Im in NO WAY suggesting that the system is adequate, or that you shouldnt take advantage of the potential benefits if you cant support yourself or your family. but my issue is with those that CAN, and simply would rather abuse the thing
 
 
w1rebaby
14:30 / 12.02.02
quote:W1rebaby - well, that and the absolute fuckloads of oil. Smiley.

true, i was thinking about that. Do they have more access to north sea oil than we do in the UK? Or is it just that it's distributed amongst a smaller population? Hmm. Anyway, that's drifting off topic.
 
 
Ganesh
14:30 / 12.02.02
In my first post on this thread, I remarked on the possibility that the US, as a supposed meritocracy, might be further down the 'earning welfare rights' road than ourselves in the UK. I guess that idea recurred to me, Bitchiekittie, when you said

quote:...and that's why welfare isn't necessarily such a bad concept

Your wording actually shocked me a little. I see the existence of a welfare state as an essential concept - and I'd echo W1rebaby's belief that it should be viewed as distinctly from a charity as possible ie. depersonalised, separated from 'my taxes' entitlement on the part of the taxee.

I'm honestly not criticising here, I'm genuinely curious (and probably a bit naive): do Americans view the welfare state as an issue for debate? Is it widely seen as a 'not necessarily bad, not necessarily' good thing, or am I inferring too much from your phrasing?

Asking because, although the welfare state's occasionally debated in Britain, I think only the hard right would seriously argue that it's not essentially a Good Thing...

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:32 / 12.02.02
But surely that's your definition of "abuse"? Is it abuse, for example, to pretend to have a job in order to get a house (and I don't know what the US is like, but here in high-density Merrie Englande we have a lot of "no DHSS" landlords), thus potentially "abusing" the landlord's trust and causing him/her financial embarassment and, who knows, perhaps ruination, if the housing benefit does not come through? What about a group of homeless people who squat a home which the owner was going to sell, and refuse to move out on the grounds that they need somewhere to live more than he needs $250,000?

Not every instance of "abuse" is about stealing bread from the mouths of the hungry. And arguably does not the fault there lie with the bureaucracy rather than the individual? They are not "stealing food from the mouths of the hungry", but trying to make the best of their situation. Did you decide at a cxertain point that you were earning enough, and subsequently donate all monies above that sum to good causes, or simply refuse to accept it?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:39 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
what Ive got issues with is the deceit - Im talking about people who sneak and lie and in that way, take from others. this is unacceptable, regardless of your ultimate intent.

I think the problem with this idea, which sounds great in principle, is that it relies on the basis that the system (not just the welfare system, but the wider 'system') is itself fair, honest, and not corrupt... If the system is corrupt, or unfair, or inadequate, then breaking the rules may be a question of surviving, not "sneaking"... (Although what we mean by 'surviving' is already becoming a bone of contention - "oh reason not the need", etc...)

quote:I just know that its wrong to take food from other peoples mouths when you are fully and completely able to provide for yourself. Im honestly surprised anyone would argue this point

I don't think anyone is arguing this point - it's just that, despite what the government are spending money on trying to make me believe, I don't believe the primary culprits of "taking food from other people's mouths" are people who work the benefit system in a duplicitous or opportunistic manner (and I'm dubious even about using the term 'opportunistic' there). Ah, rats, Haus and others have beat me to it a little here...

I think part of my problem with the deserving/undeserving idea is that I've heard it too often from middle-class kids who don't seem to realise that whatever they're going to spend it on, people who've been put in a position where they need to beg for money tend to need that 20p more than they (the middle-class kids) do.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:39 / 12.02.02
ganesh - here, its a horribly abused system, and there are a lot of people who want it done away with altogether. there are so many flaws and cracks to fall through that its a wonder that help goes to anyone who actually needs it. I personally feel that welfare is meant for people who have fallen on hard times, and should be used as a means to get back on track with your life. then discarded - NOT a permanant support system

haus - making the best out of your situation does not mean collecting money and services that were allocated for people on the cusp of having nothing if you are not one of those people
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:46 / 12.02.02
Slowly and carefully: and what if that is not what is happening? What if other variables exist - a sick child, a domestic fire, a decaying bed - that mean that - and work with me here - the need of a particular person or group of people may be greater than the government is prepared to allot?

Alternatively, to turn to welfarte as temporary measure "until people get back on their feet". What if they are on their feet, lookign around and finding that there are no jobs, as the continuinf disparity between employees and human beings in the United States and Untied Kingdom seems to suggest may be the case? At what point does a person become a shiftless wastrel? What if they are incapacitated, either physically or mentally, and thus unable to work?

Because the logical extension of the argument seems to be extermination, by execution or starvation.
 
 
passer
14:48 / 12.02.02
The welfare state is hotly debated here in the US. Although,I'm not sure how seriously I take the calls for it's complete abolishment. I view those as political grandstanding because passing the legislation simply won't happen. However, there's been a great movement toward severely restricting welfare, and a frighteningly successful one.

Lost in the shuffle of international politics and the Enron scandal is the fact that the first wave of "free loaders" to be kicked off of welfare hit the job market a few months ago. What seemed humane in a booming economy wasn't so nice in a recession.

Bitchiekittie, I can't agree with the horribly abused statement. I've heard the rhetoric, but I found it racist, sexist, elitist and lacking any thing more concrete than "look there at those welfare queens wasting your hard earned taxes" from the same people who are now rallying behind corporate handouts. I mean trickle down econ- no, sorry. It's called an economic stimulus package now isn't it?
 
 
Ganesh
14:49 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
ganesh - here, its a horribly abused system, and there are a lot of people who want it done away with altogether. there are so many flaws and cracks to fall through that its a wonder that help goes to anyone who actually needs it. I personally feel that welfare is meant for people who have fallen on hard times, and should be used as a means to get back on track with your life. then discarded - NOT a permanant support system

That kind of answers my question. Here in the UK, we're pretty used to some sectors of society spending much - or all - of their lives on at least some degree of state benefit, and not really considering that "abuse". Not to the same extent, anyway. When the current Labour Government first proposed its 'back to work' initiatives, in fact, there was genuine outcry that some subgroups (mothers, say) were being pressured to work. Despite the faintly ludicrous 'shop your local benefit fraud' ads, I think we don't get as outraged about the system being 'cheated'. I suspect that many of those you'd consider horrific abusers of the State we'd see in a much more sanguine light.

So that's interesting. I think there really is a cultural difference there.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:50 / 12.02.02
flyboy - as far as the first bit ("if the system is...corrupt"), Im not saying its wrong to take advantage of it if you have to eek a bit, knowing full well that if you dont you wont be able to feed your kids that month. Im simply referring to those who absolutely are not in need. again, I define need as basic things: food shelter running water and the opportunity to work. if you are lacking any of these things, your needs are not being met and Im all for doing what you need to do to meet them. but for anyone else, its simply wrong

as far as the begging, we have to remember that giving a handout is not the same thing as meeting that persons needs. shelters are also woefully inadequate for actually helping people for the long run. Im frustrated with the lack of organization Im frustrated with the lack of options. but people taking advantage of something that was not meant for them is not helping
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:52 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:

I'm honestly not criticising here, I'm genuinely curious (and probably a bit naive): do Americans view the welfare state as an issue for debate? Is it widely seen as a 'not necessarily bad, not necessarily' good thing, or am I inferring too much from your phrasing?



The existance of the "welfare state" is constantly an issue in political campaigns in the US, with Republicans accusing Democrats of being "for it" and Democrats denying this charge and promising to "end welfare as we know it." Which is curious because by and large the US does NOT have a welfare state at all as most Europeans or even Canadians would understand it.

And, if I may be so bold as to reiterate a point I tried to make earlier, the most vociferous opposition to the idea of a "welfare state" comes from the rural working class, who would presumably have much to benefit from it.

I think we can see a little in Bitchiekittie's portrayal of "welfare cheats" just how this issue is framed in the US (ie, pretty far from reality and what's important about welfare (or social security in general)). This ain't to slag off Bitchiekittie at all; rather it points out an essential difference in the general public perception of the issue between continents.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:53 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Slowly and carefully: and what if that is not what is happening? What if other variables exist - a sick child, a domestic fire, a decaying bed - that mean that - and work with me here - the need of a particular person or group of people may be greater than the government is prepared to allot?



then. they. are. in. need.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:54 / 12.02.02
But not of food, shelter, running water or the opportunity to work...

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:58 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
So that's interesting. I think there really is a cultural difference there.

I think you're absolutely right. But then, is this really news? We might compare US and UK health services...
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply