The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

[Priceless]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

So merely replacing "government" with "private charity" changes everything you're saying? How the hell does that logic go?

If the G-men provide you with a meal, that's making you dependent on the assistance of others. But if a Red Cross worker provides you the exact same meal, that somehow doesn't make you dependent on the assistance of others?

I got news for you; the major charities, corporations, and other NGO's are as full of "intrusive bureaucrats" as the government. America is not a bunch of family farms spreading through an untamed wilderness, with Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman and the bigoted general store owner engaging in family-friendly shenanigans that are resolved in a morally inoffensive manner for the betterment of the entire community on a weekly basis. We're a country of 350,000,000 people located primarily in urban and suburban areas, and relying on neighborhood churches to solve America's poverty isn't a realistic option.

I also find it funny that an actuary who's likely pushing paper around for 50 hours a week is complaining about others being faceless bureaucrats. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

I wonder how many of these charities also receive money from the federal government.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I wonder how many of these charities also receive money from the federal government.

Here's the other thing. If my house were to burn down tomorrow, I'm sure my neighbors would help out my wife and me. Of course, my wife and I (both attorneys) are the white trash of the neighborhood; in other words, there are plenty of resources nearby to help us out. We also wouldn't inherently need their help. We have insurance, we have steady jobs, and we have enough savings to be able to rent another place and rebuild our lives while getting back to normal if we absolutely had to.

Some family headed by a single mom working two part-time jobs while renting a house with no benefits, no insurance, and with less well-off neighbors is both less likely to be able to survive without help and to have the "neighborly" assistance Fishy seems to be expecting everyone else to have access to.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Do you really truly believe in your heart of hearts that if I personally hand you food when you are hungry prepared and delvered from my own private kitchen, and we look each other in the eye and shake each other's hand, that this situation is no different than the situation in which some intrusive bureaucrat confiscates my food by force, takes a very hefty slice off the top to cover their overhead, and then distributes that food to someone else because the have some nebulous "right" to be fed by the government?

If you look through the Declaration of Indepedence and the US Constitution, there is no right to any tangible goods at all*, anywhere*.

Ah, we finally get to the crux of your beef. It has nothing to do with this silly "extending a government hand leads to dependency" argument. The fraud in that was exposed when you tried to suggest that private parties extending the same hand create no dependency at all.

What really cheeses you off is that you don't get to volunteer your aid. That the majority in this country have realized that if we all chip in a little, two things get accomplished. First, we at least establish a base safety net to try to prevent as many people from starving to death or wandering around homeless as possible. Second, we don't throw the entire burden on those people who actually would give to private charities to prevent these things from happening. The majority of us realize that if everyone bites their tongue and contributes a little, the task get's accomplished and not at the expense of a few.

Handouts, if that's what you want to call them, provide a lot of good. There are also people who take advantage of the system, but that's human nature. Those of us contributing to the programs that provide these handouts need to be vigilant to minimize (it's impossible to eradicate all) scamming.

As for whether it creates "dependency" (whether given by private charities or government programs) is a matter of debate. My own opinion is that dependency on charity, public or private, depends upon a complex series of events, unique to just about everyone. What is the beneficiary's mental health, location, education, job training, status with respect to dependents, willingness and desire to get out of the charity cycle, job market, etc...

 

[Slap Shot]

Ah, we finally get to the crux of your beef. It has nothing to do with this silly "extending a government hand leads to dependency" argument. The fraud in that was exposed when you tried to suggest that private parties extending the same hand create no dependency at all.

What really cheeses you off is that you don't get to volunteer your aid. That the majority in this country have realized that if we all chip in a little, two things get accomplished. First, we at least establish a base safety net to try to prevent as many people from starving to death or wandering around homeless as possible. Second, we don't throw the entire burden on those people who actually would give to private charities to prevent these things from happening. The majority of us realize that if everyone bites their tongue and contributes a little, the task get's accomplished and not at the expense of a few.

Handouts, if that's what you want to call them, provide a lot of good. There are also people who take advantage of the system, but that's human nature. Those of us contributing to the programs that provide these handouts need to be vigilant to minimize (it's impossible to eradicate all) scamming.

As for whether it creates "dependency" (whether given by private charities or government programs) is a matter of debate. My own opinion is that dependency on charity, public or private, depends upon a complex series of events, unique to just about everyone. What is the beneficiary's mental health, location, education, job training, status with respect to dependents, willingness and desire to get out of the charity cycle, job market, etc...

Shazam!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Ah, we finally get to the crux of your beef. It has nothing to do with this silly "extending a government hand leads to dependency" argument. The fraud in that was exposed when you tried to suggest that private parties extending the same hand create no dependency at all.

Do you know the difference between "temporary" and "lifelong"? With many government programs, the dependency even extends for multiple generations: children of dependent parents grow up to be dependent in vastly disproportionate numbers.

Are you truly okay with that?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

A prominent, successful, and apolitical black man gives his reaction to the affirmative action case that was not decided by the SCOTUS yesterday:

This is the ugly side of racial preferences that gets little attention. No matter what one may think of the policy, the truth is that with it comes an undercurrent of implied inferiority. Even in instances when a black or Hispanic is the best qualified and well-matched for a particular career or academic opportunity, the perception of unfair favoritism follows the person, hovering in the ether. The same suspicion often follows women who succeed.

The "affirmative action" measures that were supposed to provide new opportunities for underrepresented groups also prematurely and unfairly burdened them with the presumption that they're undeserving. [emphases added]

So who does affirmative action really help? It's supposed beneficiaries? or the people who need to demonstrate that they are doing "something" to display to others how they are not discriminatory?

 

[unofan]

Do you know the difference between "temporary" and "lifelong"? With many government programs, the dependency even extends for multiple generations: children of dependent parents grow up to be dependent in vastly disproportionate numbers.

Are you truly okay with that?

If you eliminate the government safety net, what makes you think the charity based system you envision would not be similarly permanent? That's simply trading one problem for another.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

If you eliminate the government safety net, what makes you think the charity based system you envision would not be similarly permanent? That's simply trading one problem for another.

The problem is not the safety net per se, the problem is who is being helped by the safety net?

If you have a safety net that provides transitional assistance to people who generally are self-reliant but who run into temporary periods of difficulty (as has happened to me; I've drunk from wells I did not dig, and warmed myself at fires I did not build), that is a healthy society. If you have a so-called "safety net" that ensnares the same people (or, even worse, their children and grandchildren as well! ) then you have institutionalized the very problem you purport to solve.

Before welfare reform in the mid 1990s, there was institutionalized poverty. I knew several social service caseworkers, and they were running a pool to see who had the youngest grandmother. The winner: a 28-year old. Young teens talked openly about having a baby so that they could get their welfare check. They had no interest in caring for the child whatsoever; for them the child was merely an instrument that they could use to bring in a monthly check. Little wonder that those children grew up thinking exactly the same way and did exactly the same thing!

Welfare reform worked better even than its proponents expected. It did not eliminate the safety net, it changed the incentives from lifelong dependency to temporary transitional assistance.



Perhaps an analogy with a psychologist might be useful? Psychologists want to see their patients get better, but if their patients get better, how can they make a living? Well, life throws up enough misfortunes that they can genuinely help each patient to heal, knowing that someone else is going to get injured sooner or later and need help for awhile, but not permanently.

How would you feel if you learned about a psychologist who manipulated his/her patients so that they could not function without weekly or semi-weekly sessions? Would you praise said psychologist for their shrewd business acumen? or would you be outraged at how s/he took advantage of a vulnerable person for personal gain?

Now how does a government-run safety net that ensconces bureaucrats in a lifelong career differ from that?

Of course there is a small subset of people that do require permanent help. Let's not get that silly even to ask "what about this tiny fraction of a much larger whole?"

 

[unofan]

The problem is not the safety net per se, the problem is who is being helped by the safety net?...

That doesn't answer the question asked. How does replacing the government with private charity, many of which have just as much bureaucracy as a government, solve any of that?

How does a Red Cross meal not create the same disincentives as a government meal?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

...... No hockey for a couple months

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Affirmative action is probably the better example to choose to show how a well-intentioned idea went wrong, in a way that could have been anticipated from the outset if one weren't blinded by one's cognitive biases at the outset.

Let's all agree that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, creed, is a bad thing and no one wants to see it perpetuated.

That does not necessarily mean that affirmative action is the best way to address the situation. It has four major problems, one philosophical, two practical, and one structural.

1. If we say that discrimination is wrong, how does deliberately engaging in even further discrimination somehow become right?
fortunately, even the proponents of affirmative action recognize that it is also discriminatory; they defend it as a 'necessary evil', sort of like "make-up calls" in sports. The refs were making biased calls in your favor before, now they are making biased calls against you, but only for a time, it will eventually balance out and then we can go back to having a non-biased impartial ref (but not now...later....eventually....)

2. Affirmative action is harmful to the people it purports to help. I am 100% certain that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr would not have supported it. How can any minority have confidence that they succeeded solely because they earned it? Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas and Bill Cosby and many many others have written and spoken quite poignantly, and I have direct personal anecdotal experiences to share on this point as well. How can you claim that you are "helping" someone while you also undermine their self-confidence at the same time?

3. Numerous studies have found that affirmative action campaigns have been a bit too ambitious in placing people in positions, after which there is inadequate support to help them once there. Affirmative action placements have higher dropout rates and lower graduation rates (link not immediately handy; there were plenty of them published when Fisher vs UT was first argued last fall). Affirmative action placements at Ivy League schools might have been much better served had they gone to state universities instead; affirmative action placements at state universities might have been much better served at community colleges instead: placements that fit their actual level of skill and ability, not the level they "should have had" if only prior discrimination had not occurred.

4. Affirmative action is becoming institutionalized; just about every college has an entire "Department of Diversity" now. As if "diversity" were a good thing in and of itself. Toss together a roomful of people, none of whom speak the same language: we are supposed to accept that as "good" merely because it's "diverse"? We all need some commonality too! Also, see point 1 above: affirmative action was supposed to be a temporary "necessary evil" not a permanent state of affairs!

The Irish once faced severe discrimination; no longer. Yet there was never any affirmative action to help them. Indians (from India) also seem to have become mainstream without any affirmative action to help them either.

I'm not saying discrimination is okay; i'm not saying we don't need to make some kind of catch-up provisions as a transitional measure to help people overcome the problems caused by prior discrimination. If we actually gave some thought to the experience of the people we are supposedly helping, then we'd have developed some other approach from the outset instead.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

"I can't answer your question so I'm going to change the subject and hope no one notices"

 

[brookyone]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I'm not saying discrimination is okay; I'm not saying we don't need to make some kind of catch-up provisions as a transitional measure to help people overcome the problems caused by prior discrimination. If we actually gave some thought to the experience of the people we are supposedly helping, then we'd have developed some other approach from the outset instead.

Gaming casinos for everyone!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

"I can't answer your question so I'm going to change the subject and hope no one notices"

I genuflect before the Master. You do it better than anyone!

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

"I've been called out so I'm going to throw out baseless insults."

The question stands: How does replacing the government with private charity, many of which have just as much bureaucracy as a government, solve any of that?

How does a Red Cross meal not create the same disincentives as a government meal?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

"I've been called out so I'm going to throw out baseless insults."

The question stands: How does replacing the government with private charity, many of which have just as much bureaucracy as a government, solve any of that?

How does a Red Cross meal not create the same disincentives as a government meal?

I'll take a shot (not that I fully agree with the premise): When the government starts up a social program, it almost never expires, and in fact usually expands. Government can use the force of law to extract whatever money is required to fund the program in perpetuity, so people with the intent to freeload can be 99% confident that the free lunch they're getting today will be back again tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. That sort of certainty would never exist with a charity - charities know that their funding is limited, so they generally do not set up their programs to be unlimited in duration. Charities generally assist people through temporary acute troubles rather than taking over as permanent guardians - in other words, they actually act as a safety net rather than a permanent foundation.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I'll take a shot (not that I fully agree with the premise): When the government starts up a social program, it almost never expires, and in fact usually expands. Government can use the force of law to extract whatever money is required to fund the program in perpetuity, so people with the intent to freeload can be 99% confident that the free lunch they're getting today will be back again tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. That sort of certainty would never exist with a charity - charities know that their funding is limited, so they generally do not set up their programs to be unlimited in duration. Charities generally assist people through temporary acute troubles rather than taking over as permanent guardians - in other words, they actually act as a safety net rather than a permanent foundation.

Thank you. Very well put.

 

[unofan]

I'll take a shot (not that I fully agree with the premise): When the government starts up a social program, it almost never expires, and in fact usually expands. Government can use the force of law to extract whatever money is required to fund the program in perpetuity, so people with the intent to freeload can be 99% confident that the free lunch they're getting today will be back again tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. That sort of certainty would never exist with a charity - charities know that their funding is limited, so they generally do not set up their programs to be unlimited in duration. Charities generally assist people through temporary acute troubles rather than taking over as permanent guardians - in other words, they actually act as a safety net rather than a permanent foundation.

I deal with many people who would likely fall into the so-called "moocher class" on a regular basis. They go to private soup kitchens multiple times per day. They want habitat for humanity to build them a house. They ask for help from goodwill all the freaking time. And yes, they ask for government assistance too.

I still fail to see the distinction, especially in fishy's ideal world where government programs are greatly reduced/non-existent. Many charities have a permanent presence in their community and regular "customers" who come back over and over again. All you're doing at that point is shifting the burden to the private sector, which will invariably leave gaps in coverage. (for example, if the Salvation Army runs the only homeless shelter in town and excludes all atheists and other non-Christians)

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I'll take a shot (not that I fully agree with the premise): When the government starts up a social program, it almost never expires, and in fact usually expands. Government can use the force of law to extract whatever money is required to fund the program in perpetuity, so people with the intent to freeload can be 99% confident that the free lunch they're getting today will be back again tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. That sort of certainty would never exist with a charity - charities know that their funding is limited, so they generally do not set up their programs to be unlimited in duration. Charities generally assist people through temporary acute troubles rather than taking over as permanent guardians - in other words, they actually act as a safety net rather than a permanent foundation.

I think this is an excellent description. But I also think it highlights the problem with using FF's model of relying upon private charities.

Problems like homelessness and hunger don't go away, and are not solved for a person, with one free meal provided by a church or one nights sleep in a private homeless shelter. They require long term attention. People who are in that position are going to need the same meal the next day and the same bed the next night, for at least the foreseeable future. And rather than have everyone running around each day to find out which charity has food and which one has extra beds, I think there is some benefit to having a government program in place upon which they can rely.

That said, I don't think the big problem is the program that provides the aid. The big problem is the lack of a program or plan as to how to remove their dependency. So we pass reform and say you have to apply for a job or you're going to get cutoff. Alright, that's at least an idea, albeit a rather lame attempt and one not exactly designed to succeed. Seems more retaliatory than anything.

What it really comes down to is an ability to work. If they don't have an ability to work, due to physical or mental limitations, then we as a society either have to accept the fact they're going to live off our public charity, or cut them lose to starve to death. I guess I vote for the former.

As for those that have at least the physical and mental capacity to work, we have to ask why they aren't. Is it lack of education? Is it due to lack of jobs? Is it due to lack of child care? Lack of transportation? These problems have to be solved or you aren't ever going to get them off the payroll.

And candidly, that's a big problem. It's probably got unique features for everyone on the program. It won't be solved with a "one size fits all solution." Solving it will take a lot of hard work, and is probably light years beyond the capacity of a bunch of politicians who are only looking for soundbites that help them get re-elected.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I think this is an excellent description. But I also think it highlights the problem with using FF's model of relying upon private charities.

I'm perfectly content to have a mix of private charity and public backstop as long as we drastically overhaul the way the public backstop is constructed.

I'm a bit surprised that no one has yet pointed out that many of the smaller private charities are incredibly corrupt, probably just as corrupt if not more so than government programs currently are. We've seen it in NY state repeatedly; several politicians have recently been convicted in court for abusing private charities for personal gain.

Problems like homelessness and hunger don't go away, and are not solved for a person, with one free meal provided by a church or one nights sleep in a private homeless shelter. They require long term attention. People who are in that position are going to need the same meal the next day and the same bed the next night, for at least the foreseeable future. And rather than have everyone running around each day to find out which charity has food and which one has extra beds, I think there is some benefit to having a government program in place upon which they can rely.

You may not understand how many of the private programs work. There are plenty of repeat daily visitors. I came to know many of them by name, they showed up with such regularity.

That said, I don't think the big problem is the program that provides the aid. The big problem is the lack of a program or plan as to how to remove their dependency.

Yes, I've been trying to say the same thing. Those who reflexively defend any and all government programs have drowned out that question.

It's probably got unique features for everyone on the program. It won't be solved with a "one size fits all solution." Solving it will take a lot of hard work, and is probably light years beyond the capacity of a bunch of politicians who are only looking for soundbites that help them get re-elected.

Exactly: the programs should be designed from the perspective of those needing help. Today they are designed to make the proponents feel good about themselves, whether they actually are helpful or not doesn't matter.