v: I.e. let's give them more food, shelter and medical care for free.
I have absolutely no problem with giving people who cannot afford to pay for their own food, shelter, and medical care free food, shelter, or medical care.
What do you think is likely to happen to them if we don't?
v: So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford. Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour. Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment. Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.
What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family? Maybe the Jones family's employers are screwing them over, not paying them enough and working Mr. and Mrs. Jones into burnout. Maybe Mr. Jones has been hurt and is unable to work long hours. Maybe Mrs. Jones is sick and can't work at all -- not surprising if all they can afford is "junk food."
v: And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.
Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
You do understand that, right?
v: The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.
My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes.
What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?
V: If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply. But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.
No, I don't see them as "silly kids." I see them as hardworking people who literally can't afford to pay for the necessities of life.
Do you think every working adult who depends on a foodbank at the end of the month is the equivalent of a "silly kid?"
paft: We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled. v: Sorry, but this makes no sense. it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work." Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work." Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."
Actually, it's this weird analogy of yours that makes no sense. This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"
no subject
I have absolutely no problem with giving people who cannot afford to pay for their own food, shelter, and medical care free food, shelter, or medical care.
What do you think is likely to happen to them if we don't?
v: So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford. Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour. Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment. Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.
What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family? Maybe the Jones family's employers are screwing them over, not paying them enough and working Mr. and Mrs. Jones into burnout. Maybe Mr. Jones has been hurt and is unable to work long hours. Maybe Mrs. Jones is sick and can't work at all -- not surprising if all they can afford is "junk food."
v: And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.
Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
You do understand that, right?
v: The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.
My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes.
What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?
V: If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply.
But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.
No, I don't see them as "silly kids." I see them as hardworking people who literally can't afford to pay for the necessities of life.
Do you think every working adult who depends on a foodbank at the end of the month is the equivalent of a "silly kid?"
paft: We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
v: Sorry, but this makes no sense. it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work." Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work." Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."
Actually, it's this weird analogy of yours that makes no sense. This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"