Spending on Welfare is 'unchristian'

[ThatRobGuy]

From your post, it seems you don’t have a medical degree to diagnose whether your family member is genuinely disabled or committing medical fraud for financial gain. You’re making assumptions without solid proof.

You know who else doesn't have a medical degree? The Chiropractor who assessed them

That aside, you don't need a medical degree to know when a family member faking/exaggerating when they all but admit it, and tell other family members at family get-togethers "this is the guy you need to go see"

A person with common sense can also make some well-reasoned assumptions by observing behavior when you're around them.

It was always painfully (no pun intended) obvious during big family trips.

"Hey it's time start doing the prep for lunch and getting things set up"
(my aunt and cousin would both have a spontaneous fibromyalgia flare-up and "needed sit down for a bit")

Later that same day "Well, we think we're going to head into that little town we saw and hit some various stores and do some shopping"
(miraculous recovery, for both of them at the same time...amazing, and would then proceed to have no issues being on their feet and carrying shopping bags around for 3 hours)


Look, like I said before, I do think that there are unnecessary stigmas that get foisted on people with legit disabilities and ailments, and the system does make it too hard for them get decent benefits in a timely fashion. And some conservative types will unfairly go to one extreme and unfairly malign all of them as "users" and "leeches".

But if we're going to have an honest conversation, we can't go in the other extreme and pretend that the usage of the system is even anywhere close to fraud-free.


This seems to be the pattern of political discourse in this country, if one faction grossly exaggerates a problem, the other faction has to pretend the problem is non-existent or trivial.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, too much carrot raises the cost of labor, which it is why it is not MAGA.

Not necessarily...

Raising the minimum wage of a stock clerk would raise the cost of labor, but that's not what I'm referring to.

Removing expensive barriers that would allow more stock clerks to have options to get into something else could actually do the opposite, it could potentially lower the cost of labor for certain jobs higher up the chain.

So for my previous example:

A firm needs a new accountant.

If they require a college degree, the salary demands are going to be artificially higher simply based on the Degree factor.

However, a "Mike" from my previous example who's willing to do a 1-year vocational internship for $35k, then get bumped to $55k full-time at the end" is more cost effective for a company than a college graduate who's going to be demanding $70k right out of the gate (simply because they have a degree) -- and will likely still need a year of hand-holding anyway before they can fully do the job on their own without close supervision.


It all depends on the angle someone chooses to look at it from.

Some would look and say:

"A full time fry cook not making enough to have an apartment and a car is a problem, so let's bump the wage up"

As where the other viewpoint (my viewpoint) would be:
"A fry cook position not paying that much isn't the issue, the issue is that we have institutional barriers in place that have made it so that we have positions that were never intended to be permanent, ending up being that way because we've placed a $60k degree requirement between that rung of the ladder, and the next rung above it"

It should be noted that my viewpoint on that is one that's shared by some other countries like Switzerland, who've largely moved away from the traditional university system for most middle class jobs in favor of vocational training.

Fast food employees not making as much isn't an issue if it's not permanent, and is just something you do from age 16-19 when you're living at home and then enter a "Vocational Education Training" (VET) program.

Per OECD:
Vocational education and training (VET) plays a central role in Switzerland’s upper-secondary education system. After nine years of compulsory schooling (typically at age 15‑16), about two-thirds of Swiss youth pursue a VET programme, acquiring occupational skills through either a dual-track apprenticeship programme or a full-time vocational school programme. By contrast, only one-third of school graduates pursue university education.


Or to put it more succinctly:

The problem isn't that a 28 year old working at McDonald's isn't making $40k/year. The problem is that we've got people who are 28 and stuck working at McDonald's, period... and have made the next level of professional advancement unreachable due to the "college requirement" barriers I mentioned.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Jesus must have forgotten these principle. Because if he remember all these biblical principle the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus who did nothing but laid at the gate of rich man would be different.

Good. Then you can pay my bills so I can stay home all day. Because that is what Jesus would do.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Good. Then you can pay my bills so I can stay home all day. Because that is what Jesus would do.

Whether my taxes pay your bill or not is a secular government matter, unrelated to biblical principles. Mixing politics and biblical principles is risky because they often conflict.

Citing a single scripture from the Bible to argue that Christians should not help the poor due to perceived laziness is inaccurate and not supported by biblical teachings. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible contains more than 3,000 references instructing believers to assist the poor, care for the sick, support orphans, and welcome foreigners. Bible does it state that one must verify an individual's ability to work before offering assistance, nor does it suggest withholding help from those who are able to work.

 

[BCP1928]

You know who else doesn't have a medical degree? The Chiropractor who assessed them

That aside, you don't need a medical degree to know when a family member faking/exaggerating when they all but admit it, and tell other family members at family get-togethers "this is the guy you need to go see"

A person with common sense can also make some well-reasoned assumptions by observing behavior when you're around them.

It was always painfully (no pun intended) obvious during big family trips.

"Hey it's time start doing the prep for lunch and getting things set up"
(my aunt and cousin would both have a spontaneous fibromyalgia flare-up and "needed sit down for a bit")

Later that same day "Well, we think we're going to head into that little town we saw and hit some various stores and do some shopping"
(miraculous recovery, for both of them at the same time...amazing, and would then proceed to have no issues being on their feet and carrying shopping bags around for 3 hours)


Look, like I said before, I do think that there are unnecessary stigmas that get foisted on people with legit disabilities and ailments, and the system does make it too hard for them get decent benefits in a timely fashion. And some conservative types will unfairly go to one extreme and unfairly malign all of them as "users" and "leeches".

But if we're going to have an honest conversation, we can't go in the other extreme and pretend that the usage of the system is even anywhere close to fraud-free.

I don't think any body is.

This seems to be the pattern of political discourse in this country, if one faction grossly exaggerates a problem, the other faction has to pretend the problem is non-existent or trivial.

Some time ago, about the time that Harrington's The Other America came out there was a good deal of public discussion about poverty, hunger and welfare. William Buckley was well known then as a Conservative thinker (though he wouldn't be accepted as one now) and he was annoyed about claims of hunger in America being blamed on conservatives. He proposed the following solution, that certain commodities be given away free to anyone who wanted them. Thus, no one, however poor, need go hungry, so stop complaining. I don't remember what the commodities were, flour, oil, powdered milk.things like that based on the then current age surpluses, but entirely adequate for survival nutrition and cheap at the time.

The Republicans rejected it because somebody might get that food who didn't deserve it and means testing would have made it very expensive and would have saved very little by preventing cheating. He was not entirely serious about the plan but only to address the issue of some kind of "minimum income" or "negative income tax" for the poor. And here we are today, considering the same issue. If we give away too much welfare then people will not want the crappy, low paying jobs we have for them.

 

[rambot]

Please someone help me understand how this is not part of the Prosperity Gospel.

It just sounds like a rich christian who doesn't want to pay taxes and doesn't want the poor to receive help.

 

[BCP1928]

Not necessarily...

Raising the minimum wage of a stock clerk would raise the cost of labor, but that's not what I'm referring to.

Removing expensive barriers that would allow more stock clerks to have options to get into something else could actually do the opposite, it could potentially lower the cost of labor for certain jobs higher up the chain.

So for my previous example:

A firm needs a new accountant.

If they require a college degree, the salary demands are going to be artificially higher simply based on the Degree factor.

However, a "Mike" from my previous example who's willing to do a 1-year vocational internship for $35k, then get bumped to $55k full-time at the end" is more cost effective for a company than a college graduate who's going to be demanding $70k right out of the gate (simply because they have a degree) -- and will likely still need a year of hand-holding anyway before they can fully do the job on their own without close supervision.


It all depends on the angle someone chooses to look at it from.

Some would look and say:

"A full time fry cook not making enough to have an apartment and a car is a problem, so let's bump the wage up"

That would happen anyway if there is real potential upward mobility for fry cooks then the wage would have to be bumped a little to keep turnover down.

As where the other viewpoint (my viewpoint) would be:
"A fry cook position not paying that much isn't the issue, the issue is that we have institutional barriers in place that have made it so that we have positions that were never intended to be permanent, ending up being that way because we've placed a $60k degree requirement between that rung of the ladder, and the next rung above it"

It should be noted that my viewpoint on that is one that's shared by some other countries like Switzerland, who've largely moved away from the traditional university system for most middle class jobs in favor of vocational training.

Fast food employees not making as much isn't an issue if it's not permanent, and is just something you do from age 16-19 when you're living at home and then enter a "Vocational Education Training" (VET) program.

Per OECD:
Vocational education and training (VET) plays a central role in Switzerland’s upper-secondary education system. After nine years of compulsory schooling (typically at age 15‑16), about two-thirds of Swiss youth pursue a VET programme, acquiring occupational skills through either a dual-track apprenticeship programme or a full-time vocational school programme. By contrast, only one-third of school graduates pursue university education.


Or to put it more succinctly:

The problem isn't that a 28 year old working at McDonald's isn't making $40k/year. The problem is that we've got people who are 28 and stuck working at McDonald's, period... and have made the next level of professional advancement unreachable due to the "college requirement" barriers I mentioned.

Good post. We might make a Berniecrat out of you yet, but you'll never convince the corporatocrats in the Republican party or the neoliberal Democrats.

 

[lismore]

Please someone help me understand how this is not part of the Prosperity Gospel.

It just sounds like a rich christian who doesn't want to pay taxes and doesn't want the poor to receive help.

Hello!

And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” (Luke 3:11)

John said that whoever has two coats should give a coat to the person who has none. To me this suggests a freewill offering. Believers should not hoard more stuff than they can use but should give the extra stuff to those in need.

Is this distinct from a government mandate to take a very high tax rate by compulsion from the workers and to use it not necessarily for those in need?

The article I think is suggesting that tax rates are too high on low paid workers, they are struggling and that some people on benefits are better off than some who are working. There is no incentive to work. I remember seeing a post online from a UK worker who said it's Wednesday before he starts earning any money for himself, Monday and Tuesday's wage goes on tax.

God Bless

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think any body is.

You may not be, but clearly there were others who do take that approach (evidenced by the level of defensiveness that pops up almost immediately)

This isn't the first thread where I've given that same balanced approach simply acknowledging that there are some people out there who abuse the system, and was immediately met with a defensive response of "well, you're not a doctor so you can't say for sure"

But I've always found that to be something of a flimsy rebuttal.

One doesn't need to be a doctor to accurately identify the obvious cases.

The same way that if a kid has been dreading giving a speech at school all week, and when Friday rolls around, insists they're sick and need to stay home, and as soon as their parent calls them off, they seem to perk right up 20 minutes later and appear to be fine.

...a parent doesn't need to have gone to Harvard Medical school to accurately diagnose that as "idontwanttogiveaspeech-itis" lol

Some time ago, about the time that Harrington's The Other America came out there was a good deal of public discussion about poverty, hunger and welfare. William Buckley was well known then as a Conservative thinker (though he wouldn't be accepted as one now) and he was annoyed about claims of hunger in America being blamed on conservatives. He proposed the following solution, that certain commodities be given away free to anyone who wanted them. Thus, no one, however poor, need go hungry, so stop complaining. I don't remember what the commodities were, flour, oil, powdered milk.things like that based on the then current age surpluses, but entirely adequate for survival nutrition and cheap at the time.

The Republicans rejected it because somebody might get that food who didn't deserve it and means testing would have made it very expensive and would have saved very little by preventing cheating. He was not entirely serious about the plan but only to address the issue of some kind of "minimum income" or "negative income tax" for the poor. And here we are today, considering the same issue. If we give away too much welfare then people will not want the crappy, low paying jobs we have for them.

I'm familiar with Buckley to a degree

Although, I believe the negative income tax idea was the brain child of Milton Friedman, was it not?


With regards to the underlying question and same issue being discussed today.

You have to consider the time period lens with which those were being seen through.

I don't think your average rank-in-file republicans necessarily have some fetish for starving poor people.

The Cold War Era (red scare) was in full swing for much of that time period, and even more left leaning publications were telling some horror stories about the ill effects of expansive safety net programs

A Worry in West Germany: Indolence in East Germany (Published 1990)

www.nytimes.com

Even as late as 1990, here's a NY Times piece telling of how West Germany was having major concerns over how to re-integrate East Germans into their economy after entitlement mindsets produced the "I" word I mentioned earlier, indolence. The western world had gotten a 2-decade long front row seat to the worst possible outcomes that can happen when entitlement-based systems go off the tracks.


Through the more modern lens, the issues being discussed, shall we say, aren't "helped" by the fact that the same faction claiming they want to help with bare necessities by preventing entitlement cuts "because we need to do the right thing" in one breath, are also the same ones, in the next breath, advocating for much more sweeping entitlements.

In other words, if the most visible people arguing against entitlement cuts are the same ones out there with signs saying they want free tuition for all, a $30 minimum wage, and getting rid of grading systems in school because the meritocracy is racist, that's going to make conservatives very skeptical of the opposing team's position.

The same way that I would expect Democrats to be leery of any proposal to relax gun restrictions, if the most visible "pro-Gun" types they encountered were a bunch of Ted Nugent types who were arguing for having the right to shoot bazookas off in the back yard, they're going to be resistant to even conceding an inch to the opposing team.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good post. We might make a Berniecrat out of you yet, but you'll never convince the corporatocrats in the Republican party or the neoliberal Democrats.

I've mentioned before on here that I would've been completely open to a Bernie-style democrat had the DNC not kneecapped him.

I wouldn't want Bernie as an absolute ruler, as I do think some of this ideas are far fetched, but would've been content to let him give it a shot within the guardrails and counterbalance of a federalist system that has other checks in place.

 

[rambot]

Hello!

And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” (Luke 3:11)

John said that whoever has two coats should give a coat to the person who has none. To me this suggests a freewill offering. Believers should not hoard more stuff than they can use but should give the extra stuff to those in need.

Is this distinct from a government mandate to take a very high tax rate by compulsion from the workers and to use it not necessarily for those in need?

The article I think is suggesting that tax rates are too high on low paid workers, they are struggling and that some people on benefits are better off than some who are working. There is no incentive to work. I remember seeing a post online from a UK worker who said it's Wednesday before he starts earning any money for himself, Monday and Tuesday's wage goes on tax.

God Bless

How can that be?

I've heard socialism is the one with poverty; capitalism has none?

Or maybe it's that wealth is getting highly centralized and not flowing through the system and down to the workers very well. There is no incentive to work because PAY is poor. And if you are going to work HARD and be poor, you may as well be just as poor and not work.

The solution is wage increases.

But for some CRAZY reason, nobody complains about the private sector; just the government.

 

[Larniavc]

Please someone help me understand how this is not part of the Prosperity Gospel.

It just sounds like a rich christian who doesn't want to pay taxes and doesn't want the poor to receive help.

That’s exactly what it is. The rich can only exist because the poor exist. And the poor must exist for the rich to exist.

 

[Larniavc]

How can that be?

I've heard socialism is the one with poverty; capitalism has none?

Or maybe it's that wealth is getting highly centralized and not flowing through the system and down to the workers very well. There is no incentive to work because PAY is poor. And if you are going to work HARD and be poor, you may as well be just as poor and not work.

The solution is wage increases.

But for some CRAZY reason, nobody complains about the private sector; just the government.

When it’s the government it’s communism. When it’s corpos it’s good business.