welfare

[phuckphace]

I'm not sure how contentious of an issue this is in other countries, but it's very much so in the US. but discussion about what benefits should be given if any, how much and to whom seems like one of the most important parts of public policy, hence this thread.

I'll start by noting that I'm not opposed to the idea of a generous welfare state in theory. it is the duty of the state, in my opinion, to provide the public with the opportunity to meet a minimum standard of living, for which so-called safety nets are put in place. this "safety net" usually includes universal healthcare, but in this thread I want to focus more on welfare payments/pensions specifically.

to begin with, the US has a very large underclass which currently subsists on food stamps, which take the form of debit cards issued by the state government that are loaded at the beginning of each month with a balance (ranging from $100 to as much as $900) and this balance can be spent on any food item at any retailer that sells food. so far so good.

unfortunately, when I say "any food item" I mean that literally...food stamps are valid payment for anything that is edible so long as it doesn't contain alcohol or tobacco. if someone has a food stamp card and they want to buy $500 worth of ice cream, they can do so as long as the card has $500 on it. I've been at my current job for just over 4 weeks, and I saw a pattern emerging very quickly...a morbidly obese person will waddle up to the checkout with a shopping cart stacked high with gallon tubs of ice cream, 24-packs of Mountain Dew, dozens of donuts, sugary cereal like Froot Loops and Captain Crunch, etc. whenever I see a shopping cart with a cornfield's worth of high fructose corn syrup in it, I automatically guess "food stamps" and I've been right 99.8% of the time.

obviously, this is not an ideal situation, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the food stamp program has contributed significantly to American obesity rates by subsidizing junk food. I've heard progressives try to claim that the lumpenproles are forced to buy junk food because healthy food is too expensive, but this is a myth. A box of Captain Crunch costs about 4 dollars, whereas one can buy a pound of beans for no more than $1.50. carrots and broccoli can also be bought in large quantity for about the price of a dozen donuts, and while a 24-pack of Mountain Dew is over 8 dollars, tap water is several cents per gallon. it has little if anything to do with prices and everything to do with our gluttonous culture that must have its instant gratification no matter the cost. even if that cost is diabetes and heart problems.

there are several proposals for welfare reform. I've heard of the guaranteed minimum income, which I'm sure will work fantastically in places like Switzerland (I believe Vlerchan mentioned something about this in a post) but American demographics make this unlikely to turn out well. if our proles are given cash, they'll buy drugs, booze and iPads with it, and if given no-limit food stamps, they'll buy sugary drinks and ice cream as they're doing now. my own proposal is thus: firstly, place strict limits on what food stamps are allowed to purchase (healthy food only), enforce periodic drug testing as a condition of participation, and two simple, set tiers of benefit amount (individual and family) to discourage people from popping out more kids in order to receive more benefits. employment would not be a requirement but I would like to see a benefit bonus for individuals who can prove employment.

if anyone has anything they'd like to add, feel free to share.

[Harry Smith]

The food stamps issue is funny because at least in Britain the conservative party are trying to dismiss them as some sort of con where benefit cheats turn up to get a meal but I think it just shows how bad social conditions are if you'er having to feed your family at the food bank.

I know here at least it works where food bank credit has to be spend at the food bank itself meaning that you can't stock up on unhealthy food, and any attempt to regulate ood in a wider sense is dismissed as A) Violation of civil liberties B) stopping me from feeding my children what I want, I don't agree with these two views but any food related regualition always proves unpopuler.

For actually tackling the welfare issue itself we need to target a lot of money towards inner city areas, not just on education but into youth prisons, and social projects to actually prevent the issue growing. Rural areas as well are often overlooked, but I think they should continue to re-brand and diversity. I think part of the food problem could be solved at school level by giving children education about it

For social housing we need to build more of it, and build upwards because despite looking ugly as shit it's effective. Give people 3 chances to move into a council house-if they reject all 3 houses then they're back to the bottom of the list. The problem here is that people are on the list but they keep rejecting the house because the cabinet is the wrong colour

[Typhlosion]

[...] and while a 24-pack of Mountain Dew is over 8 dollars I'll admit, if soda were so cheap in Brazil I wouldn't stop drinking. Damn that is cheap.

[...] and two simple, set tiers of benefit amount (individual and family) to discourage people from popping out more kids in order to receive more benefits. That would be a solution very welcome in Brazil and is the main criticism with Brazil's 'Bolsa Familia'. Families of 5+ kids are way too common just to keep earning more welfare.

A) Violation of civil liberties B) stopping me from feeding my children what I want, I don't agree with these two views but any food related regualition always proves unpopuler. Would solve problems, but I don't support it either.

For social housing we need to build more of it, and build upwards because despite looking ugly as shit it's effective. Give people 3 chances to move into a council house-if they reject all 3 houses then they're back to the bottom of the list. The problem here is that people are on the list but they keep rejecting the house because the cabinet is the wrong colour Well that's just absurd. People really do that?

[Jean Poutine]

my own proposal is thus: firstly, place strict limits on what food stamps are allowed to purchase (healthy food only)

Why? What people eat is none of your (or the State's) business. If they want an early grave from the multitude of health complications a HFCS diet causes, simply put, it's their own problem. That kind of proposal would simply make freedom a class affair - it's no problem if some rich guy wants to gorge on Mountain Dew, but poor people...no, no, they absolutely can't do that. We would regulate how a certain class lives but not how classes that have money live. That seems unfair to me and in Canada, would actually probably be against the Constitution.

Ban junk food for everyone out of a public health policy or no one, but don't make this a class issue.

enforce periodic drug testing as a condition of participation

No, no and no. Can you buy drugs with food stamps? No you can't. Not to mention that drug users aren't criminals, but sick people. It's really just adding to their misery. It also completely ignores context because somebody having a puff of weed with a friend, even if they never buy any would risk having his benefits cut. And what if the test is a false positive?

Even if we're talking about a lump sum of money given by the State, it is still none of anyone's business but theirs. A drug habit can cost a lot of money. You can't have an apartment, a (decent) diet AND drugs on 610-740$ a month (that's how much welfare doles out here). Again, they are sick people. Cutting off their supply won't do anything but push them into even more abject poverty without fixing the base problem.

And again, there's still the fact that middle and upper class people would never get tested for any reason by the government. They should have the right to bodily integrity, but not poor people?

and two simple, set tiers of benefit amount (individual and family) to discourage people from popping out more kids in order to receive more benefits.

Contrary to popular beliefs, popping zillions of children for benefits is rarely a good idea in the industrial world, since babies cost so damn much to raise, probably much more than whatever increase the government would deign to give the parents. And when you're on the dole and have 5 children, the DPJ (Quebec's Child Protection Services) takes a real close look at you.

Of course, if the children aren't reared correctly with the additional money going to who knows what...but that's not a problem that concerns welfare, it's a problem that concerns child services, as I've said above.

I also can't help but smell eugenics in that kind of scheme. Limiting the population growth of poor people and all that. So, again, middle and upper class people could have the family they want to have but not poor people?

The principle of a welfare net is not only to help the poor, but also to safeguard their rights, and to give them a modicum of liberty despite their often appalling situations. That's what the State should do. We've all put a portion of our freedom in its trust so the rest that we do have can be guaranteed by it. Any regulation strips the poor of a portion of free will, but has no effect on the non-poor. It's a form of targeted discrimination, and I'm against it. Liberty and human rights should never be a class issue, it doesn't matter who foots the bill.

In contrast, if a government is elected by the whole population on the basis of banning junk food, drug testing everybody and enacting a one-child policy for everyone, I would tolerate that. I would not agree, and I would criticize it on the same basis as I do now but democracy would have spoken and at least, this way, everyone gives an additional shard of freedom to the State based on their own consensus, and not just the poor.

employment would not be a requirement but I would like to see a benefit bonus for individuals who can prove employment.

Yes, now that we can agree on.

[BuryYourFlame]

Considering the Australian government just released their new budget, this topic is still pretty raw with me so I apologise for what will probably be a wall of text.

One of the main reasons that people support the current government in office (the Liberals, not American liberals, they're like the Australian conservative party) is because of their stance on welfare recipients. They have induced this idea that everyone who is on welfare is simply exploiting the system as a way to avoid work and go through life doing as little work as possible. This is, however, a farce.

When you are talking about welfare you are inherently also talking about people who are extremely desperate and need that money to afford basic human needs (shelter, food, water etc.) whether or not you chose to believe that they exist (I'm looking at you prime minister Tony Abbott and Co.). People are going to cheat the system, that is a given. People also steal from stores does that mean we should make all goods pretty much inaccessible to the lower class? Of course not.

Once you start messing with welfare you either a) send people to further desperation, not being able to afford basic needs or b) impact on human rights and dignities (e.g. being able to eat what you wish). I'm not saying everyone who wants some more money should just be able to access it no matter what, I'm saying that we need a system through which people that are unable to cope financially can find help through the government (which is essentially what the government is there to do). The current budget, with severe cuts to welfare payments and inclusion of extra conditions, is the opposite of this. You're losing less money through people not cheating the system as much, yes, but you're also starting to push people towards riot-like desperation (as well as not doing your job by looking after the people).

This is why the government's policy is flawed, because at the end of the day, you still have people starving that you are refusing to do anything about even if some people abuse the system. The government is meant to be there for the all the people, not just those that are far far away from needing any welfare.

University students are also going to be going down the shitter financially as well because of uncapped university fees and the debt levels indexed to government bond rates instead of inflation rates (which tend to be much higher). This is happening at the same time as university students are receiving less help from the government financially and as it is also getting rid of job-seeker support programs at the same time...

(Well look at that, word-vomit wasn't too long haha)

[Vlerchan]

I've heard progressives try to claim that the lumpenproles are forced to buy junk food because healthy food is too expensive, but this is a myth.
I presume by 'progressive' you mean 'quasi-libertarians-who-oppose-fat-taxes' right?

Why? What people eat is none of your (or the State's) business. If they want an early grave from the multitude of health complications a HFCS diet causes, simply put, it's their own problem.
It becomes my problem when my money is used to subsidize their healthcare.

That kind of proposal would simply make freedom a class affair - it's no problem if some rich guy wants to gorge on Mountain Dew, but poor people...no, no, they absolutely can't do that.
I can agree with this.

Though, bypassing this issue is as simple as setting a certain amount in food stamps (say, 65%) only being capable of purchasing healthy food, and the remainder on whatever else. Or, simply doling out a mixture of welfare-cash and (healthy) food stamps. It's fine to consume unhealthy food in moderation, but allowing individuals to center their diets around it is ridiculous.

[phuckphace]

another interesting observation I've made about these people is their fondness for tattoos. a lot of these food-stamp users have quite a few fancy ink-jobs, including sleeves. tats aren't cheap, and a full sleeve tat can set you back $400 or more. regardless of where that money is coming from (drug dealing most likely) it shows a profound inability to manage one's finances properly. if I was living below the poverty line I sure as hell wouldn't be scraping my pennies together to get a fucking four hundred dollar tattoo.

Why? What people eat is none of your (or the State's) business. If they want an early grave from the multitude of health complications a HFCS diet causes, simply put, it's their own problem.

absolute nonsense. obesity is a serious public health issue, not only because of lowered life expectancy but also increased healthcare costs which everyone must suffer. when you have a populace the size of the US, millions of people with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and other heath issues very quickly becomes a nightmare. I don’t think you’ve thought about this seriously.

That kind of proposal would simply make freedom a class affair - it's no problem if some rich guy wants to gorge on Mountain Dew, but poor people...no, no, they absolutely can't do that. We would regulate how a certain class lives but not how classes that have money live. That seems unfair to me and in Canada, would actually probably be against the Constitution.

Bill Gates and Cletus Jones can both use their own money to buy a truckload of Mountain Dew and drink themselves into a diabetic coma if they want, there's nothing stopping either one of them. it's when public money is used that it becomes a policy problem. the state allocates the money and therefore has every right to decide what recipients are allowed to spend it on.

Ban junk food for everyone out of a public health policy or no one, but don't make this a class issue.

it is a class issue, get over it. the lower classes are statistically much larger than the upper class and thusly their health habits have a much greater public impact than those of the 1%. Don’t get me wrong, if wealthy people regularly engaged in this kind of pathological overeating with public money I’d be more than happy to go after them as well. but for now, the fact remains that the upper classes a) tend not to do that and b) there aren't enough of them to make a significant statistical impact on public health even if they all did so.

No, no and no.

WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE DRUGGIES *sob*

Even if we're talking about a lump sum of money given by the State, it is still none of anyone's business but theirs.

state’s money, state gets to decide what people do with that money, deal with it

And again, there's still the fact that middle and upper class people would never get tested for any reason by the government. They should have the right to bodily integrity, but not poor people?

I think you’re just throwing around wild-ass what-if rhetoric here. I don’t have an agenda against the poor, nor do I hold the rich in any high esteem. I’m talking about a serious health issue that could be drastically reduced with a few simple policy changes, that’s all.

Contrary to popular beliefs, popping zillions of children for benefits is rarely a good idea in the industrial world, since babies cost so damn much to raise

Neither is eating microwave pizza and mountain Dew three times a day, but…

I think it's obvious that we're dealing with a group of people who are not, as a rule, all that bright, or obesity wouldn't be such a huge problem in the first place. so we certainly can't expect them to make sensible family-planning decisions either.

I also can't help but smell eugenics in that kind of scheme. Limiting the population growth of poor people and all that.

limiting population growth has fuck all to do with eugenics but nice to see you again Mr. Godwin (SIEG HEIL)

The principle of a welfare net is not only to help the poor, but also to safeguard their rights, and to give them a modicum of liberty despite their often appalling situations. That's what the State should do. We've all put a portion of our freedom in its trust so the rest that we do have can be guaranteed by it. Any regulation strips the poor of a portion of free will, but has no effect on the non-poor. It's a form of targeted discrimination, and I'm against it. Liberty and human rights should never be a class issue, it doesn't matter who foots the bill.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I’m not overly concerned with allocating LIBURTY equally.

Once you start messing with welfare you either a) send people to further desperation, not being able to afford basic needs or b) impact on human rights and dignities (e.g. being able to eat what you wish).

I think the dignity of not weighing 400 pounds and dying of a heart attack at 45 is much greater than the “dignity” of being able to buy ice cream and Twinkies with public money.

I presume by 'progressive' you mean 'quasi-libertarians-who-oppose-fat-taxes' right?

American leftists or “liberals” as we call them.

I don’t support a “fat-tax” of any kind either.

[Vlerchan]

a lot of these food-stamp users have quite a few fancy ink-jobs, including sleeves. tats aren't cheap, and a full sleeve tat can set you back $400 or more ... if I was living below the poverty line I sure as hell wouldn't be scraping my pennies together to get a fucking four hundred dollar tattoo.
C'mon, man, think logically about this: these people are on welfare, if they've tattoos then its obviously going to be from one of their several stints in prison.

I think it's obvious that we're dealing with a group of people who are not, as a rule, all that bright, or obesity wouldn't be such a huge problem in the first place.
Have you considered other reasons beside base-stupidity as to why obesity is prevalent amongst lower-class people, such as:

Not knowing how to prepare healthy food.
Not having the time to prepare healthy food, because food stamps are doled out to more than the unemployed.
Not having the time to run-off, etc. the weight brought on by unhealthy food, because food stamps are doled out to more than the unemployed.
Not having the means to prepare healthy food, gas ovens, etc. are expensive to purchase and maintain

And so on ...

American leftists or “liberals” as we call them.
American 'liberals' are center-right, and so are not leftists.

I don’t support a “fat-tax” of any kind either.
To me, it seems a lot more rational to:
Eliminate VAT (i.e., the service charge) on foodstuffs, and then
Impose a Fat Tax on unhealthy foodstuffs
It's then universal (and thus combats obesity across all classes), and doesn't unnecessarily infringe on people's freedoms. I get that you don't give a shit about freedom, but the American electorate do.

[Harry Smith]

It becomes my problem when my money is used to subsidize their healthcare.

Surely though this is an argument that can be used to pretty much reduce every single lifestyle choice, on the basis that it costs the health service money

[Vlerchan]

Surely though this is an argument that can be used to pretty much reduce every single lifestyle choice, on the basis that it costs the health service money
Sure.

But then purchasing unhealthy foodstuffs is one of the few that is:
Widespread enough, so it's worth the bother.
Has a mechanism in place of which can be easily exploited in order to being about a reduction in the participation rate.
Has a number of substitutes, and so is elastic in terms of demand.
Due to the nature of foodstuffs in particular there's also the argument that through taxation lowering the demand, suppliers might be encouraged to reduce the amount of harmful additives in the foodstuff they supply as so to avoid the tax.

[britishboy]

I agree with welfare but it must be low enough to encourage those on welfare to get a job and we must be tight on benefit thieves.

[Vlerchan]

I agree with welfare but it must be low enough to encourage those on welfare to get a job.
You do realise that lots of unemployed people can't find jobs, and that's why lots of unemployed people don't have jobs, right?

You make it sound like they don't want jobs.

[britishboy]

You do realise that lots of unemployed people can't find jobs, and that's why lots of unemployed people don't have jobs, right?

You make it sound like they don't want jobs.

They don't want jobs! We have to import unskilled labour from all around the world to do the jobs they won't do! Every maid; every cleaner and every labourer is foreign!

I do know this does not go for everyone however.

[Vlerchan]

They don't want jobs! We have to import unskilled labour from all around the world to do the jobs they won't do! Every maid; every cleaner and every labourer is foreign!
Please provide verifiable evidence supporting these claims. Thanks.

[britishboy]

Please provide verifiable evidence supporting these claims. Thanks.

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a934.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276418/Lazy-Britain-uncovered-How-FOUR-MILLION-adults-worked-lives.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521076/The-bosses-love-jobs-Brits-werent-LAZY.html

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/387308/Working-is-not-worth-it-Benefits-mum-rakes-in-70-000-in-welfare

[Jean Poutine]

absolute nonsense. obesity is a serious public health issue, not only because of lowered life expectancy but also increased healthcare costs which everyone must suffer. when you have a populace the size of the US, millions of people with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and other heath issues very quickly becomes a nightmare. I don’t think you’ve thought about this seriously.

I'm not saying obesity isn't a health issue, I'm saying that if you're going to legislate about it, it's everyone or no one. Legislation targeting people based on their financial means is discrimination.

You really want to fight obesity, then have an universal tax on unhealthy food. It still won't really deter the rich but at least you can pump back the money into the healthcare system.

Bill Gates and Cletus Jones can both use their own money to buy a truckload of Mountain Dew and drink themselves into a diabetic coma if they want, there's nothing stopping either one of them. it's when public money is used that it becomes a policy problem. the state allocates the money and therefore has every right to decide what recipients are allowed to spend it on.

Umm, nope it doesn't. Everyone has the right to make important decisions regarding his/her life and that includes diet and whatever you want to spend your money on. Where I'm from, that's constitutionally protected.

Let's see it another way : when you pay taxes to the government, are you allowed to specify what you want them to spend it on?

it is a class issue, get over it. the lower classes are statistically much larger than the upper class and thusly their health habits have a much greater public impact than those of the 1%. Don’t get me wrong, if wealthy people regularly engaged in this kind of pathological overeating with public money I’d be more than happy to go after them as well. but for now, the fact remains that the upper classes a) tend not to do that and b) there aren't enough of them to make a significant statistical impact on public health even if they all did so.

I won't deny that obesity rates are higher in the lower classes, but the solution can be found without discriminating against anyone. Anyone can be obese, so why should poor people be penalized because more poor people are obese than rich people? Everyone is at risk, so everyone needs sensitisation and/or everyone needs incentives to buy healthy food or stop buying junk food. Lower classes are obese because fresh produce is incredibly expensive and they just can't afford it, while junk food is much cheaper (granted, among other reasons). Keeping them from buying junk food accomplishes nothing, except perhaps making them eat less than they need to, even though it is better quality. 710$ per month isn't a lot. I blow that much on rent, internet, cable and cell phone alone.

Example : when I work part-time, even I cannot afford as many fruits and veggies than I need to eat for a balanced diet. I wouldn't know about the US, but if I want to eat crap, I need 50-75$ a week. If I want to eat healthy, 80-100$ a week, and that's for just one person. I try to eat well to the detriment of my personal finances, and while I'm studying I usually have very little scratch money because my groceries are so fucking expensive. I don't even know how anybody living on a dole cheque typical of my location would eat healthy. I have been through a stretch where my income was about 750$ per month (not welfare, but study grants). The only way I managed to eat is if I bought most of my groceries at the dollar store (including nasty, chemical-tasting bread) and only could buy milk and eggs from a real grocery store. So how would somebody even poorer than I was afford decent food?

This is not directly related, but useful to get a sense of the problem : http://studymagazine.com/2013/12/16/stereotype-starving-student/

It also unjustly punishes the vast, vast majority of poor people who eat decently and treat themselves with fast food once in a while. The problem with all your propositions is that you want to gun so hard for a minority that might misuse welfare that you forget about all the others that are responsible but still human. Somebody smoking a joint every month with a friend would get cut. Somebody who likes to eat pizza once every two months as a treat suddenly cannot. Did you never find it unfair in school when the whole class was punished because just one person behaved badly?

WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE DRUGGIES *sob*

You answer like that because you know your proposition is laughable. Not only does treating "druggies" for their addictions work much better than impoverishing them even more, which predictably accomplishes nothing, you seem to have no idea of the money it would cost to drug test periodically every welfare beneficiary, for a tiny minority that might use drugs on a habitual basis, just to cut their cheques. It's probably fiscally not even worth doing because one wouldn't save enough money to make the tests pay for themselves.

Besides, I'm 100% willing to bet alcoholism is the main addiction among poor people. Do you propose they should be unable to buy alcohol also?

state’s money, state gets to decide what people do with that money, deal with it

It's not that simple. Drafting social welfare legislation in such a way that it would basically stymie beneficiaries' rights and freedoms is at the very least constitutionally dubious, and very probably anti-constitutional where I'm from. So no, it actually doesn't get to decide. "Deal with it".

One could also make the argument that once a lump sum of money (not talking about food stamps) enters the patrimony of a beneficiary, the government de facto loses any property rights it would have held on that sum of money, so cannot dictate how it is used.

Still, I have a question for you : how would you define junk food in a law and how would you keep people on food stamps from buying it? Logistically, I mean.

I think you’re just throwing around wild-ass what-if rhetoric here. I don’t have an agenda against the poor, nor do I hold the rich in any high esteem. I’m talking about a serious health issue that could be drastically reduced with a few simple policy changes, that’s all.

What about it is what-if? It's a fact - I don't get drug tested at work or for any other reason, but as soon as I become poor I should periodically be to receive welfare. Nothing changed except my social status, and nobody has any reason to drug test me other than the fact that I'm now poor. That's called discrimination.

It could also be drastically reduced in a manner that is fair for everyone involved, but people love the easy way out. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I'm all for the "fat tax" BTW, but only if 100% of the money collected goes to health care. Even better, a tax on unhealthy food makes it so the government passively gets back a portion of the money they dole out to all these miscreants who dare eat like shit without any added costs OR loss of freedom!

Neither is eating microwave pizza and mountain Dew three times a day, but…

I think it's obvious that we're dealing with a group of people who are not, as a rule, all that bright, or obesity wouldn't be such a huge problem in the first place. so we certainly can't expect them to make sensible family-planning decisions either.

There is a tremendous amount of things that cause obesity that are not linked to a bad diet. Slow metabolism, anti-depressants, thyroid problems...

Again, their bad decisions are their own. If there's a problem for the children then protection services will take them. There's no need to discriminate against anyone.

limiting population growth has fuck all to do with eugenics but nice to see you again Mr. Godwin (SIEG HEIL)

You apparently don't know what Godwin's Law is. Try again.

Placing a cap on the population growth of the lower socioeconomic segment of society has everything to do with eugenics if you take into account that poor people are generally less intelligent than people from higher up, and that a lot of people on welfare are disabled. There are a lot of reasons for poverty and it is a complicated subject, but obviously intellectual inferiority has a part to play at some point, in some cases. Less growth limits the spread of bad genes.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I’m not overly concerned with allocating LIBURTY equally.

Yeah, we're gonna. To me, everyone is entitled to the exact same liberties that the social consensus underlying society did not remove to everybody. When it comes to rights and freedom, and when it comes to the real world, I'm a classic liberal (I don't mean it in the US sense). Government's only job is to protect the freedom of everybody. That's why it doles out welfare in the first place, and why I view as quite illogical and out of bounds any proposition that would strip freedom for a class of people and not another. I think the freedom price the social contract asks is the same for everyone.

They don't want jobs! We have to import unskilled labour from all around the world to do the jobs they won't do! Every maid; every cleaner and every labourer is foreign!

Of course they want jobs, but everyone wants a job they can at least tolerate to do. Not everybody can tolerate cleaning oftentimes really gross places and clothes and not everybody wants to pick fruits for the rest of their life. The choice of their job is a right everyone has, even the unemployed. Say you're poor, and there's a job as a toilet cleaner in a bar (people puke), paid minimum wage, would you seriously take it? Because if it were me, I'd wait to see if there's something else.

People from the Third World accept our unskilled positions because they are paid a Western wage and make a fuckton more money than they would in their home country doing the same thing. Due to the cost of living in poorer countries, they come back with a very respectable sum for their standards. A Westerner that lives here year-round might rightly find it appalling to work a seriously shitty job for minimum wage. There is such a thing as "not being paid enough to do this".

In Canada, the government is trying to make it so somebody on unemployment payments has to take ANY job that is offered to him, else he/she gets cut. I don't need to explain why this is so unpopular.

[Harry Smith]

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a934.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276418/Lazy-Britain-uncovered-How-FOUR-MILLION-adults-worked-lives.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521076/The-bosses-love-jobs-Brits-werent-LAZY.html

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/387308/Working-is-not-worth-it-Benefits-mum-rakes-in-70-000-in-welfare

Did you even read the articles? The guardian one proves your wrong, at least link articles that support your claims-this is what the guardian says

According to the data, we appear to be a nation of law-abiding long-term welfare recipients in need of help – which we get. There is a small fraction who could get work and have not but they may also be people moved off employment and support allowance – that is, those have recovered from a debilitating medical condition. It's worth saying that four in five people who claim JSA come off the benefit within six months.

And no the Daily Mail doesn't count for anything-they've got the journalistic standards of a 13 year old

They don't want jobs! We have to import unskilled labour from all around the world to do the jobs they won't do! Every maid; every cleaner and every labourer is foreign!

I do know this does not go for everyone however.

Eh not really, have you ever heard of the clarke fisher model? It's basic social economics. The reason there is a lack of jobs is because of something called the 2008 banking crash-the majority of people who are out of work are from skilled industries meaning that if you've got a degree why would you work as a cleaner?. I love how you somehow think that you talk for the majority of the working Britain when in fact you just spunk up right wing crap from the daily mail, and claim that you have a basic idea of Britain

I assume that when your 16 your going to get a low skilled job, because if you don't then you're a hypocrite

I agree with welfare but it must be low enough to encourage those on welfare to get a job and we must be tight on benefit thieves.

Once again you fail to understand the issue on hand, or the basis of a welfare state, or the extend on benefit fraud. Just look-Last year, 0.7% of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud. Only 0.7%, that's a drop in the ocean. However it seems very hypocritical that you're concerned about this 0.7% yet your happy for the UK to lose 35 billion a year through tax avoidance-that's good economics right there.

Welfare isn't designed to get people into work-that was never the point of it, and I'm surprised you haven't realized that yet. It's designed to act as a safety net, and to support working families, do you understand that?

You claim that you won't to cut welfare to get people into work, but that simply doesn't work at all. All you'd do is make the problem worse

European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

64% of British families rely on welfare, for 30% it makes up half their income. If you want to lower the bill in the long term then you need people to be able to get a better job, send their children to school and climb up the social ladder. If you cute benefits all you'd do is leave another generation out of work-so if you want the TLDR version-your ideas would make the problem worse

[britishboy]

I assume that when your 16 your going to get a low skilled job, because if you don't then you're a hypocrite


No way but there is also no way I will be on benefits. Benefits shouldn't be taken until you find the job of your dreams.

[phuckphace]

I really should know better than to try to argue for action on pragmatic grounds. it seems that no matter how dire a problem is, or how absurdly simple and obvious its solution, serious attempts to move forward with the necessary action will always be crushed under an avalanche of dogma from democracy shills. "Hey guys, we've got this pretty serious problem here, but it turns out it could be drastically reduced by doing A, B and C." "BUT WHAT ABOUT LIBERTY AND EQUALITY, YOU STATIST?!" thus, the problem in question continues unabated because, well you know...dogmatic devotion to ideals is apparently more important than taking a serious interest in reality and making an attempt to better it. Realpolitik 101.

democracy evangelists really are the Creationists of the sociopolitical realm. it doesn't matter how much evidence there is that democracy doesn't always work out for the best and has serious flaws, they will continue clinging to their dogma of mob consensus über alles. it's perplexing.

Have you considered other reasons beside base-stupidity as to why obesity is prevalent amongst lower-class people...


these are the talking points I was referring to when I mentioned that American liberals often make excuses for these people, the most egregious being the "boiling broccoli is too much trouble" bit. it doesn't take a PhD in nutrition to understand that foods with excessive fat and sugar are bad for your health...this is universal knowledge. the root cause, I suspect, is simple apathy on their part.

there is no vegetable on Earth that cannot be purchased in ready-to-eat containers or in microwave-steamable bags. I've done extensive comparison shopping for my own diet that I've been on for the past five months, and not only am I eating healthier but I'm also spending less money. I'm literally eating more like a prole than the proles are.

[Harry Smith]

No way but there is also no way I will be on benefits. Benefits shouldn't be taken until you find the job of your dreams.

Spoiler alerts-you've been getting benefits since you were born. It's called child benefit http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/

Do you even understand the British welfare system? I mean pretty much every claim you've made is wrong, you've even linked to evidence that disproves your own argument

And what have you been smoking? I mean I'm just going to ignore the part about dreams because it's quite easily the worse policy I've ever seen proposed in British politics-and that's saying something. Your own argument would only make the problem worse, this has been proven by many studies

European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

To put it in laymans terms-if you take benefits away the problem only gets worse

[britishboy]

Spoiler alerts-you've been getting benefits since you were born. It's called child benefit http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/



To put it in laymans terms-if you take benefits away the problem only gets worse

Why would my father waste time applying for that pathetic amount? I do not receive that. Also that is another problem with the benefit system, same as pensions.

Erm.... No. Poor people always use arguments like that. No house or you become a cleaner what would you choose?

[Harry Smith]

Why would my father waste time applying for that pathetic amount? I do not receive that. Also that is another problem with the benefit system, same as pensions.

Erm.... No. Poor people always use arguments like that. No house or you become a cleaner what would you choose?

You really don't understand how the system works-it's not just for the dirty poor people that you hate. The welfare system is for everyone. I mean for example this

https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit/overview

that's taken out of your tax bill automatically-so no matter what you do your parents are taking benefits.

It's not poor people, it's from a think tank. This is where a group of qualified researchers publish date and reports. The article you linked towards actually linked to this, I mean if you're trying to prove a point it's best not to give evidence that proves you wrong. I mean do you want to read this again, it proves your whole claim wrong, but as always you ingore the facts, and rely on stupid generalizations that don't add up. The evidence proves that your wrong on every single account

European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

[Vlerchan]

democracy evangelists really are the Creationists of the sociopolitical realm. it doesn't matter how much evidence there is that democracy doesn't always work out for the best and has serious flaws, they will continue clinging to their dogma of mob consensus über alles. it's perplexing.
Neither me or Jeane Poutine are for democracy as it stands now.

He tends towards Dictatorship. I tend towards a mixture of Technocracy and Localized Direct Democracy.

dogmatic devotion to ideals is apparently more important than taking a serious interest in reality and making an attempt to better it.
Feel free to address the alternative that we both suggested (i.e., a fat tax.)

[Rebuttal]
Would you mind refuting all four talking points? I'll respond then.

[phuckphace]

I feel like I need to reiterate that I don't have any kind of agenda against the poor or the lower classes, I'm a socialist ffs. like I alluded to previously, in the real world there is often a need to dispense with strict adherence to democratic ideals, even in places like the US where "democracy" is supposed to be sacrosanct. in the case of the obesity epidemic, there exists a group that - whatever their income or level of wealth - is large enough to put a strain on our healthcare system if their collective health is generally poor. and thanks to free Twinkies being handed out by the state, it is, and produces negative economic realities.

but! I don't advocate any sort of class-targeted population control measures because I hate stupid proles and want to Shoah them all, contrary to JP's implication. I, for one, actually couldn't care less if there are a lot of dumb rednecks or blacks or Injuns running around being dumb...I still care about them as fellow citizens and human beings. sensible policy, however, dictates that if something is being done wrong, even by a group, we need to step in and address it, whether the perp is a cadre of Forbes 100 finance barons or a huge underclass of proles eating their way to the end of the Skittles rainbow.

Feel free to address the alternative that we both suggested (i.e., a fat tax.)

well, I'm not opposed to a fat tax per se, I just said I didn't support one currently because I haven't studied proposals like that in detail yet.

Would you mind refuting all four talking points? I'll respond then.

sure.

Not knowing how to prepare healthy food.

this is refuted by the simple fact that there exists a wide variety of readily available healthy foods that need no preparation at all, or the most minimal preparation. preparing most ordinary meals in any case isn't some four-hour Hell's Kitchen ordeal that needs a full kitchenware set and industrial gas range. it may not be as glamorous to fix yourself a small sandwich and banana in place of a four-course meal, but c'mon, you're poor.

Not having the time to prepare healthy food, because food stamps are doled out to more than the unemployed.

see above.

Not having the time to run-off, etc. the weight brought on by unhealthy food, because food stamps are doled out to more than the unemployed.

I don't think there is any amount of exercise that can reverse the onslaught of Twinkies, Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew three times daily every day. there's a reason exercise and dieting are recommended together. even with ample exercise, an unhealthy diet will still cause most people to become fat, albeit with improved muscles under the fat.

Not having the means to prepare healthy food, gas ovens, etc. are expensive to purchase and maintain.

see my first rebuttal, and also I'm just going to note that a microwave oven costs $60~ at Walmart and a used one could be purchased for as little as $30 at garage sales and Goodwill.

[Vlerchan]

I don't advocate any sort of class-targeted population control measures because I hate stupid proles and want to Shoah them all, contrary to JP's implication.
For the record, I'm more in disagreement with your characterisations of working-class people than what you actually put forward.

It could just as easily be argued that food stamps in general are discriminatory in that they only allow benefitees to purchase food stuffs.

it may not be as glamorous to fix yourself a small sandwich and banana in place of a four-course meal, but c'mon, you're poor.
I don't think this is reasonable: bananas and sandwiches don't make for a filling meal (think: dinner) and I certainly wouldn't want children living on such a meagre diet. I've also personally found that microwave meals are inordinately expensive. I don't know how well that carries over to the US but in Ireland it wouldn't be a recommendation for someone on a budget diet.

Perhaps it's because I don't know better but when I think good eating I think something homecooked. I've no idea how microwave meals square up to homecooked meals in terms of nutritional value but I've always presumed they were lesser.

I don't think there is any amount of exercise that can reverse the onslaught of Twinkies, Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew three times daily every day.
I'm not so sure that so many people consume such excessive amounts of junk food.

I'm sure there's some people but I'd question how prevalent it actually is.

[Capto]

I don't think this is reasonable: bananas and sandwiches don't make for a filling meal (think: dinner) and I certainly wouldn't want children living on such a meagre diet.

As a matter of fact, provided the sandwiches contain each at least a slice of arbitrary cheese, some sort of luncheon meat, and a sliced vegetable of variable type [for variable nutrition on other days], this meal would be both filling [in terms of bread and bananas] and relatively wholesome.

Of course, certain nutrients are indeed missing due to a lack of variety, but that can be supported by enriched bread or a beverage of some sort.

I've also personally found that microwave meals are inordinately expensive. I don't know how well that carries over to the US but in Ireland it wouldn't be a recommendation for someone on a budget diet.

Perhaps it's because I don't know better but when I think good eating I think something homecooked. I've no idea how microwave meals square up to homecooked meals in terms of nutritional value but I've always presumed they were lesser.

Microwaved meals are much more extreme, specifically in terms of sodium content. They also generally have a dearth of dietary fibre. In addition, microwaved meals are full of various preservatives and artificial colourings to maintain the integrity and fortification of the meal.

And yes, given the content, microwaved meals are far overpriced compared to a basic, simple meal made of "fresh" foods with a superior nutritional content.

I'm not so sure that so many people consume such excessive amounts of junk food.

I'm sure there's some people but I'd question how prevalent it actually is.

You'd be surprised, literally tens of thousands live this way, at least in the States and in China.