PatsFanInVa

On our most recent "race" thread, before it got locked, PR posted this regarding both race and income inequality:

And as a result of the history that created the issue. There's a nexus between class and race, which leads to all sorts of really tone-deaf crypto-racist moralizing on the right - "I don't want to get black people food stamps, I want to get them a paycheck." That sort of thing -- oh and then the laughable denial days later.... "No no I said blah people."

I bring this up because there's a really bad result when you conflate very high representation among the poor with being the "main" cause of various sorts of social spending -- not that you are doing it here, but that's what's next in the racist apologia.

As to "conditioning," that's contingent on ability to escape poverty -- for example, more Black people are unemployed, in good times and bad.

We give Americans a social safety net -- because we are not a third world nation.

Not "groups of Americans." Americans of any race who need that safety net.

Now I'm not going to dispute that there are those of whatever race who play the system, but it's a pretty meager living you eke out doing that. For most, our safety net is just that: A way to prevent you from falling off the map. Some never get off various forms of public assistance. And retirement is a whole other kettle of fish -- and one that makes sense, and that we should expand to more people, not destroy.

Now, I like your last question: What should we do about income/wealth inequality, without effing up our budget.

If I understand this correctly, it is desirable to have less extreme inequality, and it's just plain the right thing to do to mitigate suffering where possible.

You seem to be saying, you want mo/better incentives for self-reliance. Okay - where those niches are we should try to encourage self-reliance. That was the beauty of moving from welfare to EITC - it's a "making work pay" solution. It's designed to make it more attractive to work than not to, by eliminating the "I make more on assistance than by working, after the taxes" catch-22. That's not the case if you're rich, but it used to be for many who are poor.

So all that to say, it's not a given that social safety net programs de-incentivize work and independence. You don't think that person who gets EITC of 2K wouldn't rather make another 10K/year, despite the 2K lost?

Your last point -- "we cant afford it" -- is a whole nother debate but not one I'm dismissing.

So, thing 1: How do we address income inequality. As I understand it you and I both think it's too extreme -- do I read you right?

Thing 2: Is it right provide a social safety net?

Thing 3: Can we afford one? If so, how much of one?

Thing 4 goes back to where we started, the race/class nexus. We know it's there. We know naked racism, institutional racism, and history all contribute to it (and to each other.)

Hell, if we agree to things 1-3, I think we go a long way toward addressing Thing 4.

I'm glad we got beyond the fantasy world of "there's no such thing as racism, except when we mean people who actually fight racism being racist for noticing its existence."

So, let's talk about 1-3, and try to crack the nut of #4 last

PFnV

Harry Boy

I'll be back, I have to lie down and think of something to say, God Willing.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Real World

I wasn't involved in the other thread, so all I'll say is that the more you do for people, the less they do for themselves.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Titus Pullo

Is that supported by some scientific study somewhere? I'd love to read about it.

PatriotsReign

It's human nature Titus...simple as that. You can compare it to the doting parents who do everything for their children and later wonder why they aren't responsible and have little discipline in their lives.

Other than that, I'm done discussing RACISM once and for all on this board. It seems to be a favorite topic for both sides of the fence and all we do is discuss the same sh1t over and over again as if it's the first time.

__________________
"No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"

mcgraw_wv

Life, no matter what color of your skin, is subject to motivation. What is a good motivation to get a job? I was raised middle class, I wanted more, my motivation to work hard.

If you as a person is ok with living in poverty, if you were raised in it, and you could achieve that standard by not doing anything hard or difficult.

Would you do it? You can maintain what you were raised in and not do anything ( not too mention your parents never instilled any work ethic in you ) or you can step outside the hand outs and work your ass off, and I mean really work hard ( 40+ hours a week ) to make just barely enough to improve your situation marginally... What would you do?

Real World

It's supported by reality. Something most liberals don't know too much about. See, liberals only believe something they read in a book, or some scientific study. Most of which was likely written by other liberals, who learned what they did from a previous liberals book, or scientific study. I believe they then call that peer reviewed too.

Bingo. It's really not all that complicated PR. I would think it's basic common sense. Be it parents doing things for their kids, or your wife doing something for you. When your cloths are always washed by someone else, you don't ever feel the need to do them yourselves. If you don't pay for the heat, you don't worry about cranking it up so you can wear a T-shirt in the house. On the other hand, if you're washing your own cloths, or working to pay for the heat, you both tkae better care with your cloths, and wear long sleeves in the winter. I would think that why I said is a basic tenet of human nature. That doesn't mean that everyone is that way, but it's probably true for most.

The more you do for people, the less they do for themselves.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

mcgraw_wv

Especially when it creates an artificial wall, being that moment where an extra 100.00 a month in income means you lose 1400.00 in help ( made up numbers )

No one will make that progression.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

So you believe there are never any factors beyond someone's control as to how hard they can work or what kind of work they can perform? For instance, no one will ever be held back by a physical handicap or a mental one? A person who's illiterate due to poor schooling or bad eyesight or severe dyslexia has the same options as a highly literate one has? A child raised with no books in the house is going to be as knowledgable as a child raised with 1,000 books and easy access to a library is? A hungry child is going to be as motivated to pay attention to his teacher instead of his stomach as a well-fed child? A person without access to transportation (either public or private) is going to be able to seek a job as well as a person with access?

Real World

I saw on the news the other night a report on some unemployment law in SC, where they cap the bennies at 5 months. I caught the report half way through, but I saw two people interviewed. One who basically felt it was beneath her to "flip burgers" for the $7.25 min wage when her 5 months was up, while the other worked odd jobs and did anything he could find for a couple of years to earn money, despite having a degree in engineering. The question being asked was whether or not people should be paid to stay home until they find a job they like, or be forced to take a job once their 5 months is up. I firmly believe in the latter. I think it's up to the individual to be prepared for situations like this. The "safety net" isn't intended to be that preparation either. It's simply a buffer, or transitional stop gap. The idea that people should be paid until they find a perfect job is wrong imo. I think the sentiment of the "burger flipper" is far too prevelent in this country, and points to how far we've fallen as a society.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897