What are we entitled to, if anything?

[Firebird]

I read a very liberal blog, just for fun and a different perspective. The comment threads on the entries almost invariably turn into lively discussions, and occasionally I learn something.

One thing which 98% of the posters emphatically agree on is that the "poor" should be given significant assistance. To varying degrees, they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it.

They are also quite vehement against any hint of "anti-welfare" sentiments or the idea that people should not be overly comfortable in situations that do not require them to provide for themselves.

I'm not sure where I stand in this whole debate, to be honest, but I thought it would be interesting to hear some thoughts from a board that tends toward the opposite perspective.

What do you think that people are entitled to have, regardless of their income level, background, personal finances, or anything else?

[Apple]

I think we are all entitled to look for a job and earn a living. Other than that? Not much, if anything. What kind of job and what kind of living is based on your life decisions and choices--you aren't "entitled" to anything.

[pig]

It is possible but will never happen but everyone should be entititled to adequate food, housing and health care.

[whoisjohngalt]

Except "adequate" is a very subjective term.

I'd say very basic food and shelter. May be basic health care.

Lena

[Firebird]

I think we are all entitled to look for a job and earn a living. Other than that? Not much, if anything. What kind of job and what kind of living is based on your life decisions and choices--you aren't "entitled" to anything.

That's more or less how I feel, partially because it's what I was taught growing up. I was raised to hate the entitlement mentality, and my inclination is that no one "deserves" to have things they didn't work hard to get.

On the other hand, I am quite privileged and for the most part, I haven't really had a hard time achieving a comfortable lifestyle for myself. I had a ton of advantages - without them, who knows where I would be? Is it fair to say that people in general don't deserve anything that they don't earn just because I, personally, feel that I don't deserve anything *I* don't earn?

I've known a lot of poor people who eventually became successful. Without exception, they shared my mentality. They didn't assume they were owed anything just because they caught this rough break or that one. They just worked as hard as they could hoping that someday, maybe, they could actually be owed certain things because they worked hard for them. That colors my opinion as well, because it's obviously possible to come from a less privileged background than mine and come to the same conclusions.

It's a complicated question.

[whoisjohngalt]

I used to go to this "mommies" message board but I had to stop, bc in every other thread/post there was someone telling someone else that they "deserve" it. I think it will be awhile before I can hear the word "deserve" and not have my blood starting to boil.


Lena

[phil5185]

they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it.

I'm a conservative - but not the "let them die in the streets" thinking, we are a wealthy country, we can provide safety nets for people that are unable to provide for themselves.

But I think that the programs should provide 'help' rather than provide a 'living' - ie, teach a man to fish, not feed him a fish. UE should be on a declining scale, every week the check should be lowered to encourage finding a job (rather than gaming the system for 99 weeks). And we could have work camps to make use of some of the available labor.

And I think, as a society, we are failing our mental patients. A significant portion of the downtown homeless are routinely arrested and thrown in jail for reasons that they don't understand - a more appropriate setting is needed.

[Deleted]

I think that if we don't provide the poor with the minimum they will accept they will revolt and there will be another revolution. At least that is what has always happened in the past. The poor always outnumber the rich. And often they are a complacent bunch. But when they get uncomfortable enough and the right leader comes along suddenly they take over. The extremely rich support welfare programs just so the poor don't get that uncomfortable.

[april47]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, our forefathers never envisioned the "pursuit of happiness" would include what some people today view as the right to do and have whatever they want.

[lulubean]

I agree with Apple.

[tskeeter]

As someone responded to one of my posts several months ago. There is unlimited demand for free goods and services.

Here are some of my beliefs. As much as possible, assistance for the needy should be locally funded and managed. The community knows best what its members need and what is appropriate. Make work programs, such as the WPA and CCC, are better than welfare handouts. Work programs provide jobs for those who need them while providing a benefit to the community. Work programs reinforce that you need to work if you expect to eat and have shelter. Seeing parents go to work reinforces with children that going to work is an expected part of life, rather than showing them that if you do nothing for yourself, others will care for you and provide for your needs just because you exist.

Just because you exist, or had a child, or several children, doesn't make the rest of the world responsible for supporting you and your family.

[Deleted]

Three hots and a cot.

[Firebird]

Just because you exist, or had a child, or several children, doesn't make the rest of the world responsible for supporting you and your family.

This one is a Catch-22 though. If we refuse to support the families, some might step up but others will simply keep suffering and the kids will end up paying the price. I don't like that - if anyone is entitled to anything, it's kids. They don't ask to be born and they deserve to have basics like food and shelter and education regardless of stupid parental decisions.

[parker1b2]

Apple is right. I feel if you have the ability to work, you should. There should not be handouts, unless you are uncap-able of working. One reason a lot of poor people stay poor is because of the entitlements. If entitlements were stopped many people would have no choice to work, and would have to get a job and provide for the families. I give to charities and don't feel my tax dollars should go to many of the entitlements they go to. Heck, many times in my life such as High School, college and a few years ago I worked two jobs. Besides, what did all the "poor" people do 100 years ago before all the entitlements? they worked, lived in multi family places and got by without government help

[Pants]

"Besides, what did all the "poor" people do 100 years ago before all the entitlements? they worked, lived in multi family places and got by without government help"

And suffered and died in huge numbers due to malnutrition and unsanitary living conditions...

[whoisjohngalt]

They don't ask to be born and they deserve to have basics like food and shelter and education regardless of stupid parental decisions.

That might be true, but the problem is that by supporting them, we also support their parents who then create more and more of those children.

Lena

[parker1b2]

"And suffered and died in huge numbers due to malnutrition and unsanitary living conditions... "

and there isn't malnutrition and unsanitary living conditions in poor areas today?

I'm not saying cut off everyone or even help people a bit when they are down, but there is a time when we have to tell some people enough is enough.

[resolution]

I think we need a safety net for food, shelter and basic medical care. I have no problem with a work program or work requirements or shared housing/dormitories. The programs that we have now are subject to a lot of abuse so I do not object to changing them. However I do not agree with eliminating them without providing some alternative to sustain life.

I would also like to see better mental health services. I have seen a lot of the mentally ill that live outdoors that are simply unemployable. I hated the way a lot of them couldn't get food stamps (before the recession) because they didn't have their act together enough to go to the Dr appt and certify their disability.

[tskeeter]

I disagree with Firebird's perspective that you can't let the children suffer. Using this logic, I should have been provided a Harvard education and have Bill Gates financial resources. Compared to Bill, I'm suffering.

I think we need to recognize that having children is an income source for part of the US population. Having a child qualifies you for a subsidized apartment, and a wide variety of social services. Cranking out welfare babies shouldn't be an income producing industry. If we quit providing subsidies for having children you can't support, we quit incenting people to have children they can't support, and we quit incenting people to use those children as the source of their support.

[raeoflyte]

Apr 6, 2011 11:59:22 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it.

I'm a conservative - but not the "let them die in the streets" thinking, we are a wealthy country, we can provide safety nets for people that are unable to provide for themselves.

But I think that the programs should provide 'help' rather than provide a 'living' - ie, teach a man to fish, not feed him a fish. UE should be on a declining scale, every week the check should be lowered to encourage finding a job (rather than gaming the system for 99 weeks). And we could have work camps to make use of some of the available labor.

And I think, as a society, we are failing our mental patients. A significant portion of the downtown homeless are routinely arrested and thrown in jail for reasons that they don't understand - a more appropriate setting is needed.

Karma

[souldoubt]

I agree that at most a safety net for food, shelter and basic medical care. Helping people when they're down on their luck is fine but the problem is when you have people who live off the system their entire lives because the system allows it. People who do this have kids and many times their kids end up cranking out multiple kids and doing the same thing. I'm not even trying to say every child of someone like this turns around and does it but I'd wager a high percentage do. Something needs to be done to stop subsidizing people who breed like rabbits and abuse the system. When I saw the movie Idiocracy I laughed a bit at first then I got sad realizing we're headed down a path like that slowly.

[Deleted]

It isn't what we are entitled to. It is what is a child entitlted to. MOST welfare programs are NOT for adults. They are for children. They are to feed, house, provide health care for and educate children in the hopes that we can develop them into heathy, educated, productive members of society.

[Gardening Grandma]

I'm usually labeled as a "liberal", but Phil pretty much summed up my thoughts.

As far as the "if you try to help kids, you end up helping their bums of parents" argument, my response is that, as a society, we all benefit when we have an educated workforce. "Educated" doesn't necessarily mean a Harvard education. It does mean having a marketable skill and the ability to fill out an employment application, the ability to communicate clearly, to make informed decisions.

I'd like to see more vocational/technical skills taught starting in 9th grade and, for those kids who are failing academically the ability to go directly into trade apprenticeships at the age of 16.

Our school district is fortunate to have a technical school that accepts kids at 16 for 1/2 days. The kids attend high school 1/2 day and the tech school 1/2 day with the district handling transportation. My (soon to be) 16 yr old g'son has enrolled for their welding program in the fall as he is not demonstrating any scholarly inclinations.

Summary, I think everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity and that means a decent education. I think the disabled are entitled to a basic standard of living and an education that will allow them to be as self supporting as possible.

[souldoubt]

Most welfare programs aren't for adults but they benefit adults who have kids and get money, food stamps, WIC and so on from the government. There's no easy solution obvioiusly but the current system isn't working. If the government ever tried to tell people they couldn't have kids there would be rioting but on the flipside taxpayers are on the hook for people who are irresponsible repeatedly.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2011 12:53:04 GMT -5 oped said:

MOST welfare programs are NOT for adults. They are for children.

What about Medicaid and the nursing homes and subsidized senior apartments that are paid for by taxes? This is the area that makes me shudder (as well as the "children as profit center" programs). This week I was following an article on nursing homes and the comments that followed it. One woman was very upset at the nursing home where her mother was staying- complaints included that the windows were too high for her mother to see out of while in her wheelchair, no common areas where people could socialize, and the food was all canned, which her mother, who had enjoyed fresh produce all her life, couldn't tolerate. Of course it was sad- Mom was in a Medicaid warehouse for old people- but if you want a place with a swimming pool, recreational programs, Wi-Fi and excursions to the local mall, should Medicaid pay for that?

laterbloomer's comment reminded me that I'd heard the same thing from someone else- a finance guy who said that his Econ professor in college had said that social programs were the price to avoid revolution. My concern is the tipping point where the social programs are so cushy and comfortable that for most people it would be silly to actually work for a living and save for retirement.

[qofcc]

I think we owe it to people, especially the elderly and ones with children, to have the bare essentials of food, shelter and medical care, but we also owe them the opportunity to work for those items and not have things handed to them. So many programs have disincentives for work and savings. I agree that having the programs managed locally with some flexibility of the help would be valuable along with work crews. A person should be able to say I need help and the social worker should be able to say, ok, so how would you like to pay for that help... right now these are the volunteer positions available. And there should also be mandatory drug testing for receipt of any welfare. I don't have too much of an issue with someone who works hard and wants to smoke a joint on the weekend lighting up in his own home, but I'll be damned if I want my tax money going to support someone who can't get a job because he can't pass a drug test.

[Tiny]

I'm pretty firm in my belief that ALL children are entitled to a safe home, appropriate food, and an education. I'm also pretty firm in my belief that the elderly are entitled to appropriate care in their old age.
It all gets morally/ethically murky as soon as you start to consider 'impaired' kids or kids with 'impaired' parent(s). The same goes for the elderly. Then there's the issue of adults with self inflicted impairments (drugs, alcohol, whatever). How much money gets spent before saying enough? How far do you go?
I don't think there's a one-size-fits all answer.

[Deleted]

Ha. I'm a total socialist, so I think we should be entitled to a quality education that adequately prepares you to enter the workforce and start a career (I include higher education and technical school in my wish list if that is the preparation necessary to enter the workforce in your field).

I think we should be entitled to jobs that pay a living wage and enable us to support our families.

I think we should be entitled to preventive health care in addition to the emergency services we currently get.

I think we should be entitled to safe drinking water, clean air, safe communities, affordable food.

Edited because CraftySarah should be entitled to SpellCheck.

[cronewitch]

I think they are entitled to a reasonably safe group home type home with an adequate diet and climate control and opportunity to improve their lot in life without much punishment for succeeding.

Also medical care that will keep them alive if it doesn't cost too much and relief from pain and mental health drugs. So things like vaccination, tooth extractions, insulin for diabetics, setting broken bones and other normal health care including glasses so they can see but not nice ones. But no transplants or other really pricey treatments, say a half million lifetime limit.

So if for example a girl gets pregnant with no job skills, doesn't know who the daddy is and her parents won't support her because she was a tramp. She would be given a bed in a home for unwed mothers and food and medical care. She might be in a house with 4 other mothers and babies. The mothers can live there as long as they need to. Go get jobs, watch each other's babies, share cooking and cleaning duties. When they are working low paid part time jobs they can keep the money to buy clothes, things they want, diapers, go to school or whatever they want. They will be charged a nominal amount of earnings as rent like keep $100 a month then pay 20% for room and board. This allows them to earn a thousand pay 180 rent but then start buying things like better food or paying tuition and buying books so they don't have to stay poor.

They won't like a group home that is small and overcrowded so will want to better their life if they can. They won't be given clothing or toys so if they want better for the kids than just room and board they can get it for them.

People without children would get the same breaks 2 adults per room in a group home so maybe 10 people in a 5 bedroom home sharing chores. If they aren't independent a house parents couple might be needed. Same rules for working and paying rent. So even if you have some problems like Down syndrome and working part time you will live indoors and have food. The part time wages will make a difference not get you to lose your medical benefits or housing. People over 80 would get a small cash allowance to buy clothing and things if they don't have earned income or social security.

People would be encouraged to work if they can keep most of the money and they wouldn't enjoy living in a dorm or group home type housing if they didn't need to.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2011 12:07:28 GMT -5 april47 said:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, our forefathers never envisioned the "pursuit of happiness" would include what some people today view as the right to do and have whatever they want.