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: 12(3)4

 
 
MJ-12
14:58 / 12.02.02
The US has Health Services?
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:59 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Todd:
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.

so you deny that this happens? you are telling me this is a rare or non-exisiting occurence?

its true that its often made a racial or single-mother issue, but really - it happens, all of the time. remember food stamps? do you have any idea how many times Id been offered them in exchange for cash? when I worked a food shop do you have any idea how many people came in and bought stuff for people on their independance cards and right in front of me took lesser values of cash in exchange? Ive known several people on welfare, recieving full benefits who lived with their parents rent free.

its not a pretty picture to paint of people, to be sure. and placing that on the heads of the poor seems more than a bit biased. however, it happens, and quite often
 
 
Ganesh
15:04 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Todd:
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.

Meant to respond earlier, but it slipped my mind. Studies of stigma have generally shown that those further down the social heap have greater need to stigmatise those below them - so one might speculate that those on the breadline might feel better about themselves by tending toward demonisation of the "slackers" who sponge off the State instead of doing a 'decent' day's work.

Knowing a little more about the US situation, it looks like the UK Government's trying hard to recreate the situation: there's definitely an attempt to draw attention/ire towards 'benefit frauds'. I honestly think they face an uphill struggle; most Britons just don't get that angry about people who tweak or even openly 'abuse' the DSS; in fact, it's probably a mildly heroic thing to do...
 
 
passer
15:05 / 12.02.02
Bitchiekittie-
I think it's a question of perception. Rent free? So what? What about buying diapers? Food? Clothes?

I think it's hard to see from your examples that you've really sat down to talk to these people and figure out why they've managed to get together money to spend while still on welfare or what they're doing with the cash for their food stamps. Maybe their kid likes peter pan instead of generic peanut butter and by trading it in they can get that instead. Or maybe they're going to buy some beer to celebrate a birthday. I don't necessarily see that as wrong.

Wrong to me is the government saying we'll give but in return we get to watch and judge everything about your life.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: passer ]
 
 
Ganesh
15:07 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
I think you're absolutely right. But then, is this really news? We might compare US and UK health services...

Like I said, I was probably being a bit naive in assuming a particular degree of equivalence. Health services I know about, but I'm relatively underinformed about US social support services. My few non-champagne corpuscles of socialism are appropriately appalled.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
15:08 / 12.02.02
In fact, work with me here...

Welfare mom has a sick child. Now, having that sick child is impairing her opportunity to work. But if you spend money that could feed other, more *viable*, less needy children on medical attention for that child, then the opportunity to work is still impaired because she has to stay home and care for it. Or money that could be spent getting people back on their feet (and how long is it going to be before that kid becomes a profitable member of society? A decade? Ever? What if she's too sick to work, even with this expensive medical aid?) could instead be spent on daycare or creche facilities.

Might it not be better for all concerned - the mother, and others who could be more efficiently sustained on the money going to sick child - that the child die, thus freeing the mother up to work and the statre to provide for less expensive causes, thus helping more people?

Now, before anyone explodes, I'm not suggesting that letting children die is in anyone's agenda here (apart from the "cheats" who steal resources that could otherwise go to them, natch), merely suggesting that things are perhaps a little more complex than might first appear...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
15:26 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:
The US has Health Services?

Not that I'm aware of, sadly...
 
 
Ganesh
15:27 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Now, before anyone explodes, I'm not suggesting that letting children die is in anyone's agenda here (apart from the "cheats" who steal resources that could otherwise go to them, natch), merely suggesting that things are perhaps a little more complex than might first appear...

Not about to explode at all. While I'm not always a supporter, Haus, of your 'extend to logical (if absurd) conclusion' arguing strategy, I think the scenario you've outlined actually does represent the 'thick end of the wedge' where the whole 'benefit cheats' issue is concerned. I made the point a while back that quantifying 'deservedness' or 'abuse' of benefits is by no means as straightforward as some of the early posts implied.

Personally, I'd far rather live within a system which errs on the side of too many 'handouts' (and, okay, risks being 'cheated' by a minority - and I think they are a minority - of 'undeserving' fraudsters) than one which risks classifying too many as 'spongers'...

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Cherry Bomb
15:44 / 12.02.02
Uh, OK, jumping ahead here, but having worked with many, many welfare recipients over a period of two years in Chicago, I can tell you I never met a ONE of them who didnt need a hell of a lot more than we were getting.

The welfare reform act of 96 reallz did a number on basically the people who need welfare the most. The vast majority of folks I worked with were single mothers who either had their children in the Head Start pre-school program OR the sliding scale day care service (or the AIDS respite program but I don't wanna open that horribly depressing box right now) OR were in job-training and literacy programs themselves.

The NUMBER the fucking TANF put on these people. You have to check in with a counselor every few months and if you miss ONE meeting for ANY reason the first time your benefits get cut off for a month (that includes your child¨'s benefit by the way), second time they cut you off for I think either a period of 1-3 years or FOR GOOD.

Now, imagine if your child is running a raging fever and you HAVE to take them to the doctor - but of course this being America neither you nor your child have health insurance so even if you arrive early at the free clinic you still have to wait forever because everyone has the same bug, and you miss your TANF appointment. DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER - bye bye benefits.

Please, TELL ME how this is fair. I realize this in place for those who "abuse" the system but trust me, most people on welfare really just want to get a sandwich and pay their rent.

I spent a day with some friends once delivering turkeys and all the trimmings to families in all the neighborhoods we had offices in - you really would not be able to imagine the joy and RELIEF that were on the faces of the people we delivered to. We left one frozen turkey in the back of the truck, and this guy begged us for it, then tried to EAT RIGHT THERE - even though it was frozen!

The Greater Chicago Food Depository, which distributes food to low-income families, was ALWAYS unable to feed the amount of families who needed food.

It's making me mad just thinking about it. Luckily one of my jobs there was to write letters and grant proposals in order to GET services for these people. Rage makes for an excellent motivator when it comes to writing good shit, I've found.

These people NEED HELP. Their children CERTAINLY do - and that's what really gets me - penaliZing fucking CHILDREN. Is it so hard to give?

Grr.

As an aside I see W decided to reinstate benefits for legal immigrants. Thanks, fucker. I guess that's the only way to ensure they stay in the States for the shit-ass low-paying jobs they do for us. Grr.

No, no I'm not bitter at all...
 
 
Ganesh
16:02 / 12.02.02
That's kind of always been my impression, Cherry. I've no doubt that there do exist people who cynically choose to abuse the welfare system; I just think they're hugely in the minority. I also strongly suspect that even with the 'cheaters', if one sat down and examined the trajectories of their lives, they'd have had a hell of a lot fewer real choices than you or I.

But then, I find much about US society terrifying in its 'hardness'. I'm not at all sure I could've found a survival niche there, even with a largely middle-class background...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
16:12 / 12.02.02
I think it has to do with the whole "pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps, in America ANYONE can make it" and of course sheer capitalism.

I've been watching the whole Welfare reform in the wake of the current recession with interest, based on something I read in "Nickel and Dimed" (barbara eherenreich, check it out) which pointed out that in boom times welfare nearly ALWAYS gets reformed because that is the time poverty is most invisible. Except that there's always poverty, all the time - but when all the corporations are making big bucks suddenly "Welfare as we know it will be eliminated because we don't need it anymore."

Then recession hits and some of the reforms nearly always get rolled back.

I just believe that if you HAVE the ability to help someone, you should. And I think everyone has the right to a decent meal, clothes on their backs, a roof over their head and health care if they need it.

My theory is, if you give a dollar to ten people and nine of them are scamming you, it was worth it to help that one.

I realize, however, that this is in part what separates me from the Republicans..
 
 
passer
16:15 / 12.02.02
cherry bomb- my favorite bumber sticker:

"I'm too poor to vote Republican"
 
 
w1rebaby
16:44 / 12.02.02
quote:Then recession hits and some of the reforms nearly always get rolled back.

This is a very good point and seems a little counter-intuitive - but in fact illustrates a point to be made against the argument that people are naturally selfish.

Thomas Frank's book One Market Under God makes very interesting on the subject of US "cultural individualism". He claims that the idea that the US has always been a nation of rugged, bootstrapping individuals, and to do otherwise is un-American, is false, and is entirely a useful political construct. He points to the vast number of social welfare projects demanded by citizens around the period of the Depression, which undoubtedly saved the country. Only during the latter part of the century, when poverty was less visible, did "greed is good" start to take over.

I was also seeing just now a parallel between the idea that the domestic less-fortunate are completely responsible for their own situations and should be grateful for anything we give them, and the idea that citizens of foreign countries also only have themselves to blame. I've heard several people (even in the admittedly liberally-biased circles that I move in) saying "the Afghanis deserve anything everything they get, if they didn't want to be bombed they should have overthrown the Taliban". No, really. The number of problems with that statement almost stunned me into silence.

It's not hard to see how this divisive attitude, both domestically and internationally, is to the benefit of the established power structure. In the short term, anyway.
 
 
bitchiekittie
17:10 / 12.02.02
Ive begun arguing for something that wasnt my intent at all so Im bowing out of this
 
 
Ganesh
17:14 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
Ive begun arguing for something that wasnt my intent at all so Im bowing out of this

I'm not quite sure what you mean, BK, but thanks for your viewpoint - and thanks for enlightening me a little on the US welfare system.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
07:26 / 13.02.02
Well, if we pick up and run with the contentious theses that the existence of welfare cheats does not necessarily invalidate the arguments for the existence of social security, and that even those not photographed with artfulness and integrity may need a little help once in a while, then where do we go from there?

How does one run a national welfare system, or even Biodynamo's global redistribution system? How do you make welfare systems resistant to fraud without also making them resistant to genuine need that doesn't quite fit the expected paradigm? Is a massive bureaucracy inevitable? How might Rosa's active community function as a self-maintaining support system?
 
 
BioDynamo
07:26 / 13.02.02
I think what is needed regarding the question of "cheats" is a change in perception. Kittie, I feel our world-views on this matter are really far from each other, so I'll try to give some of the basis for it.

There is no such thing as "cheating the system" regarding your living. The system owes you.

"Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do!" Crass, British punk band.

One of the things I said earlier is that we live in a society of affluence. The amount of production (food, luxuries, intellectual) is well above the level it would take to sustain everybody. All it would take is re-distribution.

My feeling regarding this wealth, which currently is held in the hands of few, is one of disgust. But it is not a personal feeling of disgust against the richest individuals, nor against the richest nations.

It is focussed on the structures that supports separation between rich and poor, enabling blindness on both parts. It is focussed on the lack of solidarity built into our societies. This motivates to action for solidarity, for the re-distribution of income and wealth.

Simply because this wealth exists, it is right that everybody gets a share of it, to alleviate suffering and to give everybody as even a playingfield as possible.

Give everybody, regardless of income, social standing and need a certain sum. To the richest, this sum will be but a fraction of their income. It will not change their lives.

To the poorest, it will mean everything.

But it should be given to everybody, whether they ask for it or not. And it should be large enough to live on.

Then, an additional sum that you receive if you do voluntary work. The rich would not bother, because they make more money in an hour anyway.

The poor would have a reason to be active in society, interact with others, help others (and themselves).

The kind of voluntary work that allowes for this increase should not be defined or restricted. Arranging a consert should be as valuable as going to a consert. Both are essential roles in society's cultural sphere, organiser and participant both add to the "general intellect" of society. (General intellect is a phrase from marxist theory, and I don't REALLY know what it means, this is my intrepretation.)

To me, simply because this is possible, it is a necessity. There would be no cheats, because there would be nothing to cheat about. The amount of work it would take to make it seem like you were doing voluntary work when you in fact weren't, would be greater than actually doing the voluntary work.

As for how to bring this about in other places.. well, we have it here, kind of. It would need improvement, and the system is under a massive neo-liberalist attack, mainly from the current "social-democratic" government. These things have to be fought for.

Damn, I think I'm mainly repeating things I said in an earlier post. Sorry for rambling.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:43 / 13.02.02
Cherry Bomb rocks. That's all I have to say. And I can't be bothered writing a big long post on this, 'cause today I spent all day writing an article on the Dole Army (http://www.dolearmy.org), Melbourne's answer to welfare cheatin'. Or class-based resistance to capital. Or autonomous organising. Or media stunts. Check out their website; they're an interesting bunch and I'd really appreciate people's opinions of 'em.
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:06 / 13.02.02
quote:Originally posted by BioDynamo:
There is no such thing as "cheating the system" regarding your living. The system owes you.

"Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do!" Crass, British punk band.

One of the things I said earlier is that we live in a society of affluence. The amount of production (food, luxuries, intellectual) is well above the level it would take to sustain everybody. All it would take is re-distribution.

It is focussed on the structures that supports separation between rich and poor, enabling blindness on both parts. It is focussed on the lack of solidarity built into our societies. This motivates to action for solidarity, for the re-distribution of income and wealth.

Simply because this wealth exists, it is right that everybody gets a share of it, to alleviate suffering and to give everybody as even a playingfield as possible.

Give everybody, regardless of income, social standing and need a certain sum. To the richest, this sum will be but a fraction of their income. It will not change their lives.

To the poorest, it will mean everything.

But it should be given to everybody, whether they ask for it or not. And it should be large enough to live on.

Then, an additional sum that you receive if you do voluntary work. The rich would not bother, because they make more money in an hour anyway.

The poor would have a reason to be active in society, interact with others, help others (and themselves).

The kind of voluntary work that allowes for this increase should not be defined or restricted. Arranging a consert should be as valuable as going to a consert. Both are essential roles in society's cultural sphere, organiser and participant both add to the "general intellect" of society. (General intellect is a phrase from marxist theory, and I don't REALLY know what it means, this is my intrepretation.)

To me, simply because this is possible, it is a necessity. There would be no cheats, because there would be nothing to cheat about. The amount of work it would take to make it seem like you were doing voluntary work when you in fact weren't, would be greater than actually doing the voluntary work.

As for how to bring this about in other places.. well, we have it here, kind of. It would need improvement, and the system is under a massive neo-liberalist attack, mainly from the current "social-democratic" government. These things have to be fought for.

Damn, I think I'm mainly repeating things I said in an earlier post. Sorry for rambling.


ack! you really believe that someone - anyone - owes you or us or anyone?

Im sorry, maybe thats where we differ. I believe that you are right, there is some serious problems in the structures weve set in place for the poor - very serious, fatal flaws. and they should be addressed - quickly, now. I also agree that in a perfect world, wealth would be distributed amongst everyone so no one would ever do without - in a very ideal world, this would happen, everywhere and for everyone.

however, thats not how it is so we need to look at how you and I are to treat others and ourselves

I cannot condone dependance - on your parents, your spouse, your lover, your friends, your government. while I do believe that the system SHOULD be set up to help those in need (which, realistically, its not, as it rarely addresses long term solutions), I dont think that you, as an individual, should rely on the government to bail you out unless you honestly have no other options. welfare, ideally, should be for people whove fallen on such hard times that their suffering is crushing them, theyve fallen in such a deep hole they cant possibly climb back out. it happens, to many, and you should have the option of seeking help

but the system is fucked - people who need it fall through and are left out in the cold, while others use it as an excuse not to work

Im NOT SAYING that its easy to do it on your own - goddamn if I dont know that its not - but you should if you are able.

THATS my point, that you shouldnt take advantage if you know you dont HAVE TO
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:18 / 13.02.02
Ah, and the capital letters. I don't think people are failing to understand your point - BK - I think they are exploring its implications.

As for "dependence"....call me a mean sister, but if I lend somebody £50, at some point I expect £50 back. At the moment I earn money, and pay some of that money in taxes to my government. One of the things I expect those taxes to do is to provide a level of support for the unemployed and poverty-stricken, if only so that they don't feel the need to redistribute the wealth. Should I become unemployed and poverty-stricken, I would hope that the system would allow me to feed myself and provide for certain functions of life.
Because there *are* other options - prostituion, theft, mugging, petty crime, you name it. But I for one do not believe that people shoudl be forced to fall back on those options. At present you seem to be saying that welfare shoudl be applied to those who need it, and withdrawn from those who don't. But who decides who needs it, and who decides how to ensure only they receive it?

What you seem to be saying is not "I think that welfare should be given only to those who need it", but "Welfar should be given only to those I think need it" , which is a very different thing. Where is the line? If the only other option is starvation? If the onyl other option is illegality? If the only other option is demeaning or humiliating?

Of course, you may disagree with redistributive taxation in its entirety...in which case what is the alternative?

[ 13-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]

[ 13-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:22 / 13.02.02
I think BioDynamo is proposing a (utopian) situation in which the entire system is radically altered so that *no one* falls through or needs to seek help - in a way it would be a mutually dependent society which would acknowledge that dependence and see it as a positive thing... rather than expecting people to stand alone and support themselves (and when they fail seeing it as a failure specific to that person).
 
 
Jackie Susann
11:38 / 13.02.02
Okay, I am trying to avoid joining the game of 'let's kick BK' that seems to be developing in certain quarters, but I do have a question.

If nobody owes anyone else anything - if I'm not owed anything, and I don't owe anyone anything (with obvious exceptions) - why should I work at a job where most of the money produced by my work goes to someone else? And I mean the boss, not the government through taxes etc.

I think what Biodynamo was saying, or at least what I think, is that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of security just because. I think you've said the same thing, that people's needs should be provided for. He's proposing a system that would do that. Since you've been complaining about how fucked up the US welfare system is, I'm not sure why it bothers you so much (apart from his punk lyric quote...)
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:44 / 13.02.02
Which was just Crass.

I've always wanted to make that pun, and yet now I feel strangely empty.
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:47 / 13.02.02
quote:Ah, and the capital letters. I don't think people are failing to understand your point - BK - I think they are exploring its implications.

sorry about the caps, Im frustrated not that no one understands me but rather that Im failing to stick to my point, and instead making some really shit statements I dont mean. very frustrating indeed

quote:One of the things I expect those taxes to do is to provide a level of support for the unemployed and poverty-stricken, if only so that they don't feel the need to redistribute the wealth. Should I become unemployed and poverty-stricken, I would hope that the system would allow me to feed myself and provide for certain functions of life.

I completely, 100% agree

quote:Because there *are* other options - prostituion, theft, mugging, petty crime, you name it

again, Im not saying that anyone in the above situation shoudnt be allowed to rely on assistance. but there ARE other options -for starters working two jobs, busting your ass (thats what I did, and Im not really the most ambitious type), and cutting back on the extras (Im an expert at that). while I think welfare is excellent for those that need it, I dont think its really a good thing for a person to depend on something to fall back all the time.

things fall through, bad things happen, mistakes are made - hell, when I had my kid I was working part time minimum wage, and so was her dad. I managed to stay home with her for two and a half years while he worked for little more than that. when I went back to work I was armed with no skills or experience outside of retail and when we split up, I had to work almost incessantly to keep up (by then we added the significant expense of full time child care). but I did it. I received no welfare, no outside money and no child support (other than the fact that he paid for day care). hard? yes. is everyone in that situation as capable of doing that? no, and if not they should be collecting support. but if Id done any less, I wouldnt respect myself as much as I do today.

what have you taught yourself but taking the easy way out? again, Im not talking about people who cant, but rather those who can (like me), and dont

quote:But who decides who needs it, and who decides how to ensure only they receive it?

surely theres some sort of formula. its not exactly a difficult issue - if you are physically unable to work, if you are emotionally unable to accomplish that, theres disability. if you dont make enough to pay your rent and put food on the table, you need welfare (although I believe this service should be coupled with job training and placement)

quote:Of course, you may disagree with redistributive taxation in its entirety...in which case what is the alternative?

I dont; only in the manner in which the money is handled
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:55 / 13.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
Okay, I am trying to avoid joining the game of 'let's kick BK' that seems to be developing in certain quarters, but I do have a question.

If nobody owes anyone else anything - if I'm not owed anything, and I don't owe anyone anything (with obvious exceptions) - why should I work at a job where most of the money produced by my work goes to someone else? And I mean the boss, not the government through taxes etc.

I think what Biodynamo was saying, or at least what I think, is that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of security just because. I think you've said the same thing, that people's needs should be provided for. He's proposing a system that would do that. Since you've been complaining about how fucked up the US welfare system is, I'm not sure why it bothers you so much (apart from his punk lyric quote...)


A) I dont feel you are kicking me, or that anyone else it. but I do appreciate the consideration, thank you

B) pretty much, theres really no escaping such a job here. theorectically, you can start your own business and be your own boss, but first you need the capital (which would, Id assume, be earned through working for someone else, or else by getting a government grant or bank loan, which would cause you to be obligated to follow certain rules you may not want to adhere to) and then you need to work with the government, with liscenses and working within regulations paying taxes and fees on everything etc etc. your money is never truly yours here, is it?

C) I admire his idea, but its not going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. and I completely believe that there are thousands of huge changes that could happen to make that a reality - but it would require a massive wave of cooperation that I simply dont see happening.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:56 / 13.02.02
Fair enough - and I doubt that anyone on this side of the Atlantic would say that our own Department of Social Services is either well-run or organisationally competent.

On the other hand, the reason many people would hold an animus against them is that they make people feel ashamed of their unemployed/disabled state, which is a different matter.

So, do I understand you aright? If somebody is capable of holding down two jobs at once, they should, but if they are not capable of so doing, they should instead be provided for by the state? And, presumably, that incapability would extend to there not being any jobs around? So, if there were simply no jobs available, somebody could be maintained indefinitely by welfare, despite being able-bodied and mentally capable?
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:06 / 13.02.02
I dont see why not
 
 
odd jest on horn
12:26 / 13.02.02
here we had a pretty good welfare system (in the last few years it has been going down the drain unfortunately).

one key igredient is that if you're mentally or physically incapable of work you get approx. 80% of the minimum wage. Lots of these people are bums, drug users and what not. But most people don't care.
a) drug abuse is seen as stemming from or being mental illness.
b) society is better of giving them money for nothing than having them begging, stealing or what not.

i think these are good reasons. those who are either incapable of working or are prepared to face the stigma of not wanting to work are few. we, who are capable of working do so and live better for it. those who are working under the table but still receive benefits are also stigmatized, but the benefits aren't all that much, and those jobs don't pay all that well either. live and let live. those who are really making some money but still try to get benefits get caught :-)

so even here, where there's no oil, just fish, and capitalism reigns free-er than i'd like nobody goes hungry.

what i see currently wrong with icelandic society is misuse of power to make some serious money. abuse of foreign workers who don't know how the system works to make some serious money. also massive unemployment through movement of capital. making people jobless who definitely don't want to be unemployed and don't want any benefits, but have no choice. and those fuckwit neoliberals who are trying to ruin it for all of us who get voted for by the masses through sheer apathy. re: down the drain. sigh.

bk: i think it's wrong to take advantage of benefits, but why isn't there more money spent on benefits so that even though some behave immorally it won't affect the majority that isn't? i think that's the real crux of the matter. i mean compare defense budget vs. social security budget. notice anything funny?

[ 13-02-2002: Message edited by: odd jest on horn ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:48 / 13.02.02
quote:Originally posted by odd jest on horn:
bk: i think it's wrong to take advantage of benefits, but why isn't there more money spent on benefits so that even though some behave immorally it won't affect the majority that isn't? i think that's the real crux of the matter. i mean compare defense budget vs. social security budget. notice anything funny?

again, I agree with you. I think the us government has LOTS of issues to deal with (dont even get me STARTED on the "justice" or legal system here), and this is just one of the big ones that should be dealt with, asap
 
 
alas
19:42 / 13.02.02
bitchiekittie: I'm interested in what you say, and I believe that your basic point is that you don't like people who cheat welfare.

I am a foster mom, so I visit welfare offices on a regular basis (in the US, as well as in Britain). In the typical US welfare office, everywhere there are signs talking about how terrible a crime welfare fraud is, how you will be prosecuted for it AND GO TO JAIL (they put it in scare caps. In case you didn't get it the other 100 times.) I missed an appointment for my kids last friday--I had an important appointment come up. I tried to call them to rearrange it (oh, and they just TELL you what time to come, there is no consultation.) But they weren't open and there was no directory helping me to find my case worker's voicemail number (caseworker, in US, changes about twice a year, despite that, when I go to the cubicle hell they work in, I see all my old caseworkers. There's a deliberate strategy at work to MAKE SURE they do not know you, your story.) So I got a letter yesterday saying that my childrens medicaid benefits would be cut off. Case closed.

Welfare fraud, documented cases of it as well as estimates, is actually however, quite low--something like 2% (I tried to find this, can't.) Tax evasion, however, is much higher--estimated at 10%. Moreover, as Ralph Nader says, in so many ways the poor pay more because of business fraud which is White Collar Crime.

Poor rural folks hating welfare most? Divide and conquer works, folks.

quote:I cannot condone dependance - on your parents, your spouse, your lover, your friends, your government.

But what this leaves is absolute dependence on our employer's whims. Or on the vagaries of the global economic system.

We are all interdependent. Radical independence of which you speak is a fantasy. It does not exist. The wealthy are most dependent of all: they are dependent on all of us. On their ability to create tax and other laws that absolutely favor their right to exploit natural resources and human beings with great state institutional protections that we pay for.

Welfare fraud IS PISSANT its the PISSIEST OF PISSANT in that system.

In my humble opinion. Sorry abou the caps.

The economy, for example requires that a certain number of people be unemployed.
We ALL depend on people being unemployed to keep the economy moving along, clickety click.

I think I'd like you, bitchiekittie, if I met you in real life. But my concern is that your opinion plays into the interests of those who would have us all dependent solely on the vagaries of THEIR system, even as they--airline executives, e.g.--bilk the system for all it is worth.

It's divide and conquer. We need to ignore the poor welfare cheats (welfare being 2% of our national budget). The cheats will always be with us, in all levels of society. But the rich cheats have the power to a) hide their cheating, b) hire an accountant to hide their cheating, c) pay off a congressperson to have their cheating not be cheating but OK BY US, or D) all of the above and worse, have it be called "merit"--give them a tax break for it and maybe a medal!!!

my $.02, after taxes.
 
 
bitchiekittie
20:08 / 13.02.02
I agree that there has to be drastic changes in the way that social services treats people, that there are are cracks and crevices and people fall through - I dont believe I ever once suggested (and if I did, I communicated horribly) otherwise. only that people who willingly take advantage when they absolutely do not need to are wrong

for example: I need a new car, mine is falling apart. I cannot afford a new car, so this one will have to do. if I have no car, I cannot get to work, take my kid to school, etc. whats my solution? well, I could do any of the illegal things haus suggested earlier or I could hit my ex up for "child support" or any number of things that are possible but still not right. if I had no other choice, fine. but guess what? Im employed, I can save money. I can also get a second job or figure out a legal way to make more cash. I have those options, so its only right that I take them.

thats the separation for me - do you have an alternative? no? well then, take the money and run with it, no hard feelings and no guilt

if so, you shouldnt be taking the governments money - I believe in standing on your own, if you are able
 
 
alas
09:54 / 14.02.02
BK: I really do think I get what you are saying. You say:
quote:I'm employed, I can save money. I can also get a second job or figure out a legal way to make more cash. I have those options, so its only right that I take them....thats the separation for me - do you have an alternative? no? well then, take the money and run with it, no hard feelings and no guilt. if so, you shouldnt be taking the governments money - I believe in standing on your own, if you are able

You are right: you can get a second job. But if you have to do that, I will not be happy. Because you are too cool to be working that many hours a week. I'm serious!

I'm angry because you can get that job only from a system that clearly does not pay you well enough, given the cost of living in this country. You and I are both dependent on that system.

Now, why can the current system do that to any of us? Because it has us by the proverbial balls (and so far as i can tell, we're both females): if we had more alternatives, they wouldn't have so much power to take and take and take and take from us. To get us to work 80 hrs per week for shit wages so we can get a car so we can drive to work so we can make the shit wages so we can pay for the car so we can ....

Meanwhile the average CEO makes more than 500x the average worker's wage in this country! Only a few years ago, that was 300x. In Japan and Europe, its smtg like 38x the average worker's wages.

In my opinion: You are NOT standing "on your own two feet." Nor am I. I'm gainfully employed, too. You and I are "standing" only by the grace of the system: i.e., with as much support as the system will give us. And that system does not give a shit about us, and if it can turn the screws sharper and make a profit, it will.

And to help it do that it will say: "Pay no attention to the MEN behind the curtain. Instead: Look at those welfare frauds! They're the ones who are cheating! Get mad at THEM!!! Do Not Get Mad At Us. We are the great and powerful Oz. We make the rules, and we will work to control the language you think in.... No, wait, we didn't mean that: You are THINKING FOR YOURSELF. You are good. It's those bastards, those welfare scum. Look at those frauds. You're really more like US. We all work for a living...." Meanwhile, they are screwing us all, while we bicker about who deserves a slightly bigger crumb from their obscene table.

Under the current system, we are trained to think we are "independent" if we are "working for a living." But we are not. That radical individualism is a sexy, attractive, Co-Opted narrative used to disguise the fact that we have become dependent on a corrupt, capitalistic structure, where the rules--even the rules governing what counts as "legal employment," are designed to keep the money flowing up.

Bottom line: The more we decimate public welfare and unemployment and social security supports, the less any of us can say to this system: "screw you! I'd quit rather than play by your rules!"
 
 
Naked Flame
09:54 / 14.02.02
The arguments over who 'deserves' need one side-point: this money stuff that we're arguing over, it's fictional. It's an abstraction of the concept of value. In modern capitalist society, wealth is generated primarily by the movement of money and by people taking advantage of imbalances between perceptual and actual values. (Perceptual being how much you're willing to pay, and actual being the weight and measure of the thing.) As we're all aware, the people at the top of these structures of wealth creation are making an obscene pile out of knowing this trick. They know money's nothing, really: they see noughts strung in telephonic proportions across expansive cheques and it bears no relation to, say, the price of a loaf of bread. At the bottom of the pile, as I'm sure most of us can attest, money feels unpleasantly, spikily real. Down here, we're the butt of the money joke.

Yet at the bottom are the people driving it along. Every person on the planet is implicit in the process of wealth creation. And the poorest contribute most. Your benefit cheat wearing $200 Nikes probably put $100 in Nike's pocket, $60 in the retailer's, $20 into the supply chain, $10 to the factory, $5 to the materials suppliers, and $0.10 to each of the 50 people who actually made the things. Where did Nike's $100 come from? read No Logo. (I haven't. But I hear Naomi knows about this stuff.) A capitalist society is dependent on its consumers. Those outside the charmed circle claw and fight and break rules to get in. If and when they do, they don't undermine it: they reinforce it, because they've bought into all the stuff you desire money for.

Point is, even though your guy was breaking the rules and screwing the system, the money went right back into the system. It always does, except when the people at the top sit on it. There's no escaping it. So why not let it flow? Arguing that a welfare state will be exploited is no grounds for not having one. Any exploited cash gets spent in the local economy, and if you catch 'em you have the rulebook to throw at 'em: meanwhile, 95% of state-dependent people would breathe a collective sigh of relief and get on with making lives for themselves that don't need to include black-economy activities. Then we begin a slow segue into something beyond capitalism where we start to all share our toys and play nice.

In the absence of such enlightened times and ways, I find Ganesh's prescription of consistent inconsistency the best policy. Give when you wish and give what you want. Act according to your own perception of need in the situation at hand.
 
 
odd jest on horn
09:54 / 14.02.02
your kids don't deserve you getting a second job, it's unfair to them. it's unfair to you. everybody should be able to provide for themselves by working 8, nay, 6 hours a day. people fought and died for a 8 hour workday.

the situation stinks. sigh.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:54 / 14.02.02
Not to mention that a second job takes the opportunity to work away from somebody else...
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply