This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] dalik 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I think the military offers a system that allows people to be lazy, not physically but mentally.
You need to fit the military culture which is to basically follow orders without questioning them, this is a very lazy approach to life.
[–] logos_ethos 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
I guess I should use something like "unwilling to fairly exchange labor" or "unwilling to give service in exchange for something" instead of the word lazy to avoid going down this pedantic distraction. I need a more concise word for that, though.
Your post gave me an idea. What if federal welfare was only given if 1) you have already paid into the system or 2) you serve in the military. The USA was not designed with a standing army in mind, so there was not an opportunity to balance this back then. Local welfare would still be required for people unable to work or join the military.
[–] dalik 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I tend to tell people to pick your battles. Sometimes just giving people money now and tools to help them get out of their hole is a far better option and cheaper than to just let them fend for themselves. Sadly, once you're in a bad place, people tend to avoid you so getting back on your feet is extremely hard if not impossible for most. I would think most homeless people do not have the mental fortitude to have this battle.
If we only give welfare to those that paid into the system than those that didn't will likely cause much more costly problems for everyone else. How much does it cost to jail someone? How much does it cost for someone to be homeless from the problems they create? Home much does it cost if disease breaks out? All the tourism that goes to another place instead of your town? How much does that cost compared to giving people welfare and real help to get them out of their hole? Probably far far cheaper to just give them welfare.
Not giving people welfare will certainly create a justification to remove these people at all costs since they do not contribute. The reality is, these people do not want the homeless to contribute, they want them to go away. This justification will likely lead to far worse consequences and extremely poor treatment of people. The sad thing is, anyone can end up in their position, just one bad accident away from being homeless.