Archived Maine Wants Candy, Soda Excluded From Food Stamps (Wall Street Journal) (archive.is)
submitted ago by cpoakes
Posted by: cpoakes
Posting time: 5 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 2801
SCP: 123
125 upvotes, 2 downvotes (98% upvoted it)
Archived Maine Wants Candy, Soda Excluded From Food Stamps (Wall Street Journal) (archive.is)
submitted ago by cpoakes
view the rest of the comments →
[–] perfectpencil ago (edited ago)
People always take the path of least resistance (all life forms do, so lets not pretend the poor are an alien species).
If we make welfare really hard to maintain.. what is easier? finding a career or quickly committing a crime? Seeing as folks on welfare probably have been looking for work since forever (even if only passively) I'm willing to bet they won't default to it if you take away their food and did nothing to bring careers to their area. (Even if it's a truck load of snicker's bars). They will try to find the next easiest way to obtain their basic human needs (food, shelter, love etc).
You COULD make welfare harder only IF you made getting a real job easy. Discourage & Encourage together. Personally I'm not one to subscribe to the (rather politically polar) view that the poor are just lazy and need to have a fire lit under their asses to get a job. Its much more complex than that. If that's all it was then we wouldn't have ever needed welfare to begin with. The fear of being destitute and homeless would have been enough to maintain a 100% employment rate.
Personally I believe people can't be herded like sheep or lead like a pack of dogs (by an alpha)....but rather must be lured like cats. Bring good work opportunities to their area that offer a benefit that is greater than being lazy and collecting welfare. Most people would jump on the chance. problem is though, the "low entry" jobs like manufacturing are being given to poor Chinese, not poor Americans.
[–] Lake ago
I picked up one of those "low entry jobs like manufacturing" and I get paid enough to support myself and pay rent on a 2 bedroom home, food, utilities, internet, cable, and phone. I have zero experience/money minus knowing how to drive a forklift (which I gained in retail). How was I able to take care of myself without government assistants?
I grew up with people that were in the same (or better) situation as me but they are almost all welfare leaches or in jail. What did I do different? I went to work. I busted my ass. I showed up every day I was scheduled. I did what I was asked to do.
Slightly off topic: We are having a problem getting someone into a position that is exactly the same as mine. This has to be the easiest jobs I have ever had. It's not hard. We have been through 7 people in the past 4-5 months. Every single one of them has been terrible. I wouldn't have hired them. The thing is my company hasn't let a single one go. They all were no call no shows. Why is that? They didn't WANT to work.
I have been a part of this class of people for a long time and I just can't hear anymore excuses when I have been handling it just fine and doing nothing but improving myself.
[–] perfectpencil ago (edited ago)
Do you consider yourself the "base standard" for human capability? As in: if you can do it, everyone else should be able to as well.
We get ourselves into a funny place when we get into this mind set. It's easy to make huge leaps in assumption about another person this way. I am a college grad and was one of the top of my class when I graduated. If I considered myself a base standard, then I would be ignoring a childhood FILLED with extra-curricular classes starting when I was in elementary school. Perhaps you view these "leeches" with rose tinted goggles? You mention some of them had a "better situation" then you... but have you considered that perhaps what was "better" was not actually better for them, personally?
For example.. lets look at a spoiled rich kid. There are tons of them out there and I am willing to bet the farm that you've heard of at least 1 in your lifetime. A kid who has been showered in riches, the best opportunities and education ends up going sour, doing drugs and blowing off life because of.... what? From the examples I've seen it is usually a lack of adversity or hardship. Life is too easy and there is no motivation. But if this can be true, then why is the inverse not accepted as also possible? Someone who grows up with no education, no wealth and no opportunities is showered in only hardship and suffering... why is it acceptable to say that they are defective when it is possible that "hardship" was not the lacking factor in their lives, but perhaps something positive was missing?
I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart hippie here. I understand that there needs to be a will to work and survive. I'm just saying that (going back to my original thought) someone who only has access to hardship and is not performing well in life maybe would not benefit from more hardship. I'm sure there are many criminals who would not work a normal job if you shoved them into it but that can't be the statistical majority of the poor. Humans need adversity but also need opportunities to overcome that adversity.
This argument (and many like it) typically boil down to the "red vs blue" mindset of "morality vs empathy". But i always saw the two as being interlocking components and not adversarial concepts. Society needs enough empathy to know that morality is a learned aspect. It needs to understand what environments create strong moral/productive citizens and then spread those conditions across the land.