forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I think that is my line not Max's.  How do you honestly feel that it would effect the country if the government were able to cut all the deadbeats out and give money to only those who truely needed it?  Put aside the fact that it would be impossible to do in reality.  I understand that my paychecks would be fatter but do you think that the overall standard of living in the country would drop?

Not necessarily.  First off, let's start by asking why did the deadbeats become deadbeats?  Did they become deadbeats because they choose not to work under any condition or because a system exists that allows them to get by while being a deadbeat?  Being lazy and being stupid aren't necessarily connected.  Some of the schemes to defraud the system require a bit of effort and resourcefulness.  I suspect that if given the option of finding a job or starving to death, many of those people would find work.

Would some become criminals--sure.  Would some opt for the life of a destitute--I suppose.  But I suspect that many more than we think would opt for a life of some sort of self-reliance.

It's like the old adage that you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach the man to fish and feed him for life.  If the system is set up such that I catch the fish, the gov't takes it and gives it to the man, why does the man have any incentive to learn to fish on his own?

Max talks about the inequalities of the school system.  I'd much rather my social security contributions be put toward the educational system than supporting a bunch of deadbeats.  As Max said, help those who truly need help, but make the process truly unappealing so that people have an incentive to move off the system and into a system of self-reliance.  With the money we save not handing out money to those with the ability to work, we improve the structure of educating future generations.  Maybe then we could break the cycle of dependence. 

I just don't think there's a short or long term benefit to society by accepting that some people who are capable of being self-sufficient will elect not to be and that the rest of us have to support that person.

Not a bad point and it even goes back on what Max has stated about the enviromental part of it.  If you take the aid away and force dad to go to work, instead of son seeing dad do nothing and get away with it he would see you have to work for a living.  The biggest problem would be getting dad to go to work.  I am sure he feels the federal aid is owned to him.  An even bigger problem then that would be convincing Americans that some people have to learn to fend for themselfs.  Alot of us bitch and moan about paying the way for other but I dont think alot of us would be willing to watch that person go without the basics.  I am sure that such a plan would never make it through congress. 

I posted a long winded post on the old "new message board" once about who the country needed to just bite the bullet and go into a depression.  I felt it would change the way we lived for the better.  Instead the government is borrowing there way out of it.  The same would be true in the case of SS, Disablity and welfar.  The country isnt willing to bite the bullet now for the long term good.  For one that isnt the way to get reelected.

Last edited by APRTW (1/05/2011 3:38 pm)