- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:36 pm to Duke
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:36 pm to Duke
quote:
It'd be easier to be a libertarian by the more traditional definition, but this damned bleeding heart of mine gets in the way.
I actually am very much a softy in real life and will do and do and give and give to help others.
Because of my bleeding heart tendencies I don't want the gov to "rescue" people because they aren't good at it and usually just create more dependency.
3
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:37 pm to Duke
quote:
but this damned bleeding heart of mine gets in the way.
Make your wallet and bank accounts bleed so your heart doesn't have to.
ETA: I know that sounds flippant but isn't it true. There's no need to bleed if you are doing all you can. You can't wait for the gov or the masses to quell that desire for good.
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:37 pm to Pinecone Repair
quote:definitely agree but there's a middle ground between encouraging dependence and temporarily helping out somebody in a shite spot in their life.
create more dependency.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:38 pm to Iosh
Nope, not even close to me 
oh well
oh well
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:38 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Cash rules everything around me
Dolla dolla bills, y'all.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:39 pm to rbWarEagle
great song
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:40 pm to Tiguar
Looks like Wu-Tang is going to be the soundtrack for the rest of my day. 'Preciate it.Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:40 pm to Machine
quote:
temporarily helping out somebody in a shite spot in their life.
I don't know anyone IRL against this.
It's the dependency that is the issue for the folks I know.
I don't know how you solve it though because a liberal told me that by being responsible and checking to see if people actually need help we'd spend more money on that verification than we would save.
It seems that the takers have won if that's true.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:40 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:44 pm to Pinecone Repair
quote:
I actually am very much a softy in real life and will do and do and give and give to help others.
Because of my bleeding heart tendencies I don't want the gov to "rescue" people because they aren't good at it and usually just create more dependency.
I'm a hopeless pushover for a sob story. I just prefer to keep the government out of it. In fact, govt policy is destructive IMO. At least the way we're going
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:45 pm to Iosh
I thought about making something like this but honestly got bored after making the template
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:47 pm to Pinecone Repair
quote:
Because of my bleeding heart tendencies I don't want the gov to "rescue" people because they aren't good at it and usually just create more dependency.
That's the challenge here. I see the broken intensive structure of our current welfare system that basically punishes people financially when they start to move ahead. I see the multitudes of programs with as many different administrative bodies trying to govern them and know our current method is far from optimum.
Yet I still support some level of safety net. You give people more freedom to take a chance when there's a net to catch them and a much easier path to recover when shite goes south.
So this "bleeding heart libertarian" wants to improve the incentive structure so there aren't so many traps when you start making more money, and streamline the program into one agency/administrator as well as many of the programs.
Now will we ever get there in practice? Let's just say I doubt it.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:49 pm to Duke
quote:
our current welfare system that basically punishes people financially when they start to move ahead
What do you mean by this?
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:52 pm to roadGator
quote:
You can't wait for the gov or the masses to quell that desire for good.
Nah, I agree. I push for the government to do better and the masses to do what they can, but I can only really control what I do.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:53 pm to roadGator
quote:
quote:
our current welfare system that basically punishes people financially when they start to move ahead
What do you mean by this?
Let's say you want to get ahead by taking a part time job. The current system will reduce benefits, meaning youre working more for the same results.
Few people will try to improve their lot incrementally if it's working against them
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:55 pm to Duke
quote:
I push for the government to do better and the masses to do what they can
I ask this for understanding only.
How do you do both of those things specifically? How do we get there in other words.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:55 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Few people will try to improve their lot incrementally if it's working against them
These people aren't good then are they?
A strong work ethic should make one want to get a part time job so that you can build yourself up for a better full time job by making yourself more valuable to your current employer or a totally different employer.
Am I the one with the fricked up morals?
Posted on 5/25/17 at 2:59 pm to roadGator
RogertheShrubber probably has a post copied on his desktop ready to paste here fwiw.
Here's the scenario. You had some bad luck, lost your job, and have been relying on government assistance to get by. Since the programs are means tested, once you get into the workforce you lose benefits while also having the income you earn taxed. Those food stamps don't have sales tax attached, but when you make too much money for them you get to pay that sales tax too.
You get a situation where if you don't have a clear path to significantly more income in the future, it's financially beneficial to stay on the dole because you will have more money than if you didn't.
LINK
LINK
Got you some jumping off points linked above.
Here's the scenario. You had some bad luck, lost your job, and have been relying on government assistance to get by. Since the programs are means tested, once you get into the workforce you lose benefits while also having the income you earn taxed. Those food stamps don't have sales tax attached, but when you make too much money for them you get to pay that sales tax too.
You get a situation where if you don't have a clear path to significantly more income in the future, it's financially beneficial to stay on the dole because you will have more money than if you didn't.
LINK
LINK
Got you some jumping off points linked above.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 3:00 pm to roadGator
quote:
quote:
Few people will try to improve their lot incrementally if it's working against them
These people aren't good then are they?
A strong work ethic should make one want to get a part time job so that you can build yourself up for a better full time job by making yourself more valuable to your current employer or a totally different employer.
Let's be honest, poor people in general aren't great decision makers or possess the best work ethic
Most think short term. If they lose benefits, they aren't going to work more.
We'd be better off tying benefits to education and/or training and allowing people to move up before removing their support. Why? They aren't nearly as self motivated as we are.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News