Do the poor have to suffer?

[gumOnShoe]

In order to have change, do the poor have to suffer?

Will they otherwise be apathetic, as they are in America now? Could the great social programs of yesterday that didn't go quite far enough, but did just enough to make people stop caring be the reason we haven't seen dramatic change in the last 30 years?

And if so, could the Republican victory today ruin them tomorrow?

[adrshepard]

Who says they are suffering? They have free healthcare, food if they are part of a family (TANF), free public education, and cheap housing. They have for free what has been far beyond the reach of nearly all of humanity since the beginnings of civilization.

Now, by our standards, poor people can have all that and still be miserable, but how many are you going to give the benefit of the doubt and claim that they are somehow victims who have "fallen through the cracks?" Does no one actually deserve to be poor because of their own actions? I don't deny the existence of people who have experienced repeated misfortunes by no fault of their own, but I do doubt that the vast majority of poor people fit into this category. I've seen too many poor people firsthand who shoot themselves in the foot by wasting money on drugs, tobacco, and alcohol addictions, by having children out of wedlock and without any means to support them financially, or by committing stupid crimes that limit their employment to menial labor jobs. Obviously some of them weren't raised very well or are just ignorant, but that only makes their situation tragic, not unjust.

You have to make a distinction between victims of society and victims of their own poor decisions.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

Well Nuclear Fusion can increase all standards of living. Lets fund that, just for the chance.

[Ranger2]

This is an ignorant thread, OP. You're naturally assuming that the Republicans hate the poor and that all of the poor are apathethic.
Quit making sweeping generalizations and quit whining about how the poor have to suffer and how if we all paid a little more, just a little more, just a little more, everything will be happy in our Juche society.

[Korriken]

At 2/28/11 08:27 PM, Ranger2 wrote: This is an ignorant thread, OP. You're naturally assuming that the Republicans hate the poor and that all of the poor are apathethic.
Quit making sweeping generalizations and quit whining about how the poor have to suffer and how if we all paid a little more, just a little more, just a little more, everything will be happy in our Juche society.

sure they do, its common liberal knowledge that republicans are trying to return things back to the way they were in the late 1800s when industrial companies would pay their workers with scrip to force them to purchase from the company store at ripoff prices to make sure they all worked to the day they die. its just one of those things you have to accept as fact because, well, in the liberal world it is.

they wanna bust up unions so the corporate entities can turn the poor man into their slaves, to work 7 days a week and only pay them enough money to get a loaf of bread and a small jug of milk to feed their starving children.

they wanna do away with social programs to force the poor to work for the giant corporate entities. this is all very basic liberal truths that simply must not be denied at any time for any purpose.

you must not argue against the liberal truths, for they are truth itself. to deny these truths mean that you are a racist bigoted idiot and must be silenced.
Liberals, they do not need logic to back them up because they have the liberal truths they can turn to.

(or at least it seems like a lot of them think this way)

[Camarohusky]

At 3/1/11 01:05 AM, Korriken wrote: sure they do, its common liberal knowledge

Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

[Korriken]

At 3/1/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

shining example. let's see some links proving your claims.

[Halberd]

I'm a Republican supporter and I believe that people who earn money worked hard for their money and poor people will just need to find a way to make money and deal with it

[SmilezRoyale]

Very few people who oppose the programs you may be referring to think that the poor ultimately benefit by their existence.

It's not like the 'tax the rich' advocates who know that the Rich themselves are at the losing end of all of their schemes, don't care, and go about their business unhindered. Life in this system is a zero sum game and so for some to benefit others must lose, it makes sense then to, in theory, expropriate the most affluent to benefit the least to maximize the greater good of some sort.

Asking someone if they think the poor need to suffer additionally for society to progress, or asking if they'll entertain the notion that amounts of money rather than systemic flaws in incentives and structure is rather silly.

If you are asking for the sake of tallying people who say 'yay' or 'nay' then this is a popularity poll.

If you're asking for the sake of 1) Learning what the anti-state-welfare-aparatus arguments are or 2) disproving them thereof you either have to 1) Ask people what the objections are to the programs or 2) refute prominent arguments, preferably by referencing a fairly reputable source that can start as your beginning.

A better question is, for society to prosper, do bureaucrats and social workers, who are the prime beneficiaries of Welfare [at least in this country] have to suffer. I would say probably, because their numbers and aggregate salaries are very likely inflated relative to societies actual demand for them. They are no different in this respect to a corporation that has ceased to provide value to consumers because their main consumer, the government, is the only reason their operations are viable.

Since we've established that it's acceptable to argue based on propositions that individuals haven't accepetd, I hope my question isn't too unacceptable to ask.

[Zendra]

At 3/1/11 04:00 AM, FurryDemon wrote: I'm a Republican supporter and I believe that people who earn money worked hard for their money and poor people will just need to find a way to make money and deal with it

Wouldn't applying the basic social (political) systems improve that? Invest in that, which ensures that people can live longer, which improves the quality of life. By that, people will be able to work longer and more, thus resulting they get a fair change contributing to that system and help out others. In theory it's a postive spiral system. Which means that people can work and try to reduce that call ins of illness, etc. Which makes it a good solid foundation to keep the economy running.

[satanbrain]

Learning is suffering? Can't they study and work hard and succeed without anyone helping them?

[adrshepard]

At 3/1/11 08:26 AM, Zendra wrote: Wouldn't applying the basic social (political) systems improve that? Invest in that, which ensures that people can live longer, which improves the quality of life. By that, people will be able to work longer and more...

You would think that, but extending the average lifespan has limited returns to scale. Whether people live to be 80 or 90 doesn't change the fact that they will still retire at about the same age. I suppose you could increase lifespan and raise the average retirement age if people were more physically fit, but that's not something that can be done through medicine or science.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/1/11 10:13 AM, adrshepard wrote: You would think that, but extending the average lifespan has limited returns to scale. Whether people live to be 80 or 90 doesn't change the fact that they will still retire at about the same age. I suppose you could increase lifespan and raise the average retirement age if people were more physically fit, but that's not something that can be done through medicine or science.

Raising the retirement age is a recipe for major economic disaster. The young are already having trouble getting work because the elderly are refusing to retire. If that were to become mandatory we would end up having a large amount of expensive near-retirees and a large amount of skilled unemployed workers. Our economy is built around worker turnover at the age of 65(ish). Changing that even by a small 5 years could have massive negative consequences.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 3/1/11 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

shining example. let's see some links proving your claims.

Laws created to protect property are only designed to defend the Bourgeois.

Holla to Karl Marx.

[adrshepard]

At 3/1/11 11:07 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Raising the retirement age is a recipe for major economic disaster. The young are already having trouble getting work because the elderly are refusing to retire. If that were to become mandatory we would end up having a large amount of expensive near-retirees and a large amount of skilled unemployed workers. Our economy is built around worker turnover at the age of 65(ish). Changing that even by a small 5 years could have massive negative consequences.

Or massive positive consequences by reducing the burden of Medicare and Social Security. Besides, what types of jobs are the elderly and recent graduates both competing for? Wal-Mart greeters? For any white collar job it's going to cost more to employ the older person because of experience pay grades and higher insurance costs, so I don't see it affecting young workers very much.
On the other hand, in some places the average unemployment benefit is greater than the average social security benefit. The people who would be crowded out by a larger senior workforce would probably be the middle-aged, who would tend to have higher salaries and greater unemployment benefits. But even so, payroll taxes usually cover unemployment insurance outside of recessions while Medicaid and SS have huge projected deficits. Hard to predict over the long run.

[Zendra]

At 3/1/11 10:13 AM, adrshepard wrote: You would think that, but extending the average lifespan has limited returns to scale. Whether people live to be 80 or 90 doesn't change the fact that they will still retire at about the same age. I suppose you could increase lifespan and raise the average retirement age if people were more physically fit, but that's not something that can be done through medicine or science.

I am more speaking of the quality of life. Give them good care, so they are able to work. People who're home and sick and not brining anything to the system. :)

[B151]

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

shining example. let's see some links proving your claims.

Laws created to protect property are only designed to defend the Bourgeois.

Holla to Karl Marx.

Yes, let's just forget the fact that Marx advocates for killing the Bourgeois and the poor who defend their system. No one suffers there at all.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 3/1/11 01:31 PM, B151 wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

shining example. let's see some links proving your claims.

Laws created to protect property are only designed to defend the Bourgeois.

Holla to Karl Marx.

Yes, let's just forget the fact that Marx advocates for killing the Bourgeois and the poor who defend their system. No one suffers there at all.

Lets.

I wonder if we will ever run out of demand. At this point the Bourgeois will no longer be capable of sustaining their profit, which leads to pressure on workers wages and vivalarevolution.

[B151]

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

I wonder if we will ever run out of demand. At this point the Bourgeois will no longer be capable of sustaining their profit, which leads to pressure on workers wages and vivalarevolution

You're never really goign to run out of 'demand'. Demand is a pressure, not a stream (voltage v. Current).
If the demand for an item ever decreased to unsustainability of a buisness model, like hell you're going to see movement to other services/goods where demand potential exists (These bourgeois afterall would have the capital to back this up), profit and demand curves don't tolerate sudden change, there's always a slope.

Shift would, while pressuring wages, eventually return them to a tolerable level.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/1/11 10:13 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 3/1/11 08:26 AM, Zendra wrote: Wouldn't applying the basic social (political) systems improve that? Invest in that, which ensures that people can live longer, which improves the quality of life. By that, people will be able to work longer and more...

You would think that, but extending the average lifespan has limited returns to scale. Whether people live to be 80 or 90 doesn't change the fact that they will still retire at about the same age. I suppose you could increase lifespan and raise the average retirement age if people were more physically fit, but that's not something that can be done through medicine or science.

I'm having trouble finding the article, but I will post it if I can. There's a new compound that they've been injecting rats with that reverses the aging process. Not halts, reverses. Of course, I'm having a hard time finding it, but its bit off topic anyway.

I was really just curious if people thought that poor people might be like Pavlovian dogs. You give them just enough and their mouth waters every time. They don't call for further reform because they aren't dying in a gutter. And those that are dying in a gutter are busying dying in a gutter.

Then again, it could also be that the middle class now lives in the suburbs away from the poor and just doesn't care anymore.

[ChainsawNinjaZX]

adrshepard has won the thread. Debate can stop now.

[yoyohobojo]

Soup brahs.

I feel sorry for the poor. They suffer much much more thatn any other. I hate the typical Conservative response that "they're lazy/made bad choices that got them there" because the majority are poor as they were born with a crappy hand, and are unable to do anything. In India, the only way to get by if you're poor is to get a family and more children = more work. There poverty is hit unprecedented levels. There are many potential geniuses among them, never given the chance to excel. I hate that. But, in a capitalist world ruled by money and corruption, it is inevitable that the lower masses suffer. The solutions are universal health care, or at the very lease better grassroots level reforms. This is where Tea Party/Conservatives Cry out saying "bu-bu-bu-BOOM (rednecks killing some bald eagles and bear with a shotgun) bu bu bu that's SOCIALIST COMMUNISM!"

I'd say go for capitalism with a more socialist intent, because no one should have more than 10 million dollars. But, humans are greed, selfish, (at a subconscious level)and the bad ones vastly outnumber the genuinely good.

Do they have to? Sadly, yes. There will always be poor who suffer. There's no real solution besides that provided by the philosopher Malthus, who said we should neuter them, or kill them, so that they/future offspring don't overpopulate the world/don't live such a nasty, brutish, and short life. A beastly solution. I'd say that we should reach out to the more gifted members and connect them to society.

A large problem is overpopulation, less food, corruption, and less need for manual labor with machines.

Anyways, that's my thoughts.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Laws created to protect property are only designed to defend the Bourgeois.

Holla to Karl Marx.

Even though historically the poor have been DRAMATICALLY worse off in countries without private property?

hahahahahah retard

[Yorik]

At 2/28/11 07:37 PM, adrshepard wrote: Who says they are suffering? They have free healthcare, food if they are part of a family (TANF), free public education, and cheap housing. They have for free what has been far beyond the reach of nearly all of humanity since the beginnings of civilization.

Now, by our standards, poor people can have all that and still be miserable, but how many are you going to give the benefit of the doubt and claim that they are somehow victims who have "fallen through the cracks?" Does no one actually deserve to be poor because of their own actions? I don't deny the existence of people who have experienced repeated misfortunes by no fault of their own, but I do doubt that the vast majority of poor people fit into this category. I've seen too many poor people firsthand who shoot themselves in the foot by wasting money on drugs, tobacco, and alcohol addictions, by having children out of wedlock and without any means to support them financially, or by committing stupid crimes that limit their employment to menial labor jobs. Obviously some of them weren't raised very well or are just ignorant, but that only makes their situation tragic, not unjust.

You have to make a distinction between victims of society and victims of their own poor decisions.

All of this is the entire point of the idea. I believe it was Ben Franklin that said the poor should suffer (correct me if I'm wrong) and the reason is because it will make them strive to not be poor. The point is that there SHOULDN'T be socialized support for poor people because that makes it okay to be poor.

[SadisticMonkey]

Gum

expanding entitlement schemes, apart from being a terrible way of alleviating poverty, makes the poor more dependant upon the government. When the government loses the ability to pay these entitlements (including losing the ability to pay the real value of these entitlements), as they inevitably will, the poor will be extremely hurt by this.