Racism in California: Historic opportunity denied to black man.

'everyone else' 'the majority' ?

Evidence, please.

What choice are you referring to?

 

The choice to be financially responsible, in order to qualify for benefits should you ever need them.

 

Everyone has that choice, it's a given.

But, when it comes to government assistance, need is the determining factor.

You made a claim something to the effect that most people were abusing the system, hence your position.

However, I've not seen any evidence of your claim being true.

Feel free to provide it.

 

1) You cannot harm your chances (of obtaining benefits) by making bad choices, so ultimately your choices are not part of the equation.

2) Need cannot be determined by bank balance! A rich man could blow his dough at the casino .. or hide it the name of a relative. The only way we can determine need is via history of behaviour. Someone in genuine need behaves a certain way (because all mammals are driven by the same survival instincts). When that behaviour is not observed, it's patently clear that the person is not in need.

3) If you doubt the widespread abuse - you need only check the definition. Abuse means 'not used for its intended purpose'. Since welfare's purpose is as a temporary platform for building a path out of poverty, it's pretty freaking obvious that abuse is massive. Welfare was never intended to be a replacement for work in the able bodied.

 

Correct. That is as it should be.

No. need is determined by examining an applicants overall financial, mental and health picture.
How they arrived there is not part of the equation. unless there was a catastrophic event, like an injury or a fact of disability, etc.

It's not obvious at all. It might be to cynics, but it's hard to see the world as it really is through the fog of cynicism.

If that is reality, as you claim it is, then the onus is on you to back it up, because your argument appears to be predicated on that assumption. "It's freaking obvious" is not a merit worthy argument.

In my view, government assistance models predicated on the objective of taking people out of poverty, that goal is there, but the primary goal, in my view, should be 'relief from the sting of poverty' ie, making life bearable if possible. Getting out of poverty is a long range strategy, to be applied to a population, on the whole, requiring education, counselling, addressing how individuals see themselves and their place in the world, matters of self esteem, dealing with addictions, toxic relationships. etc.

 

1) You totally missed the point about choice.

2) Yes, and the very BEST way to ascertain someone's mental and financial picture, is via their behaviour history. People act according to their circumstances and preferences, so in looking at their actions we can most accurately determine their need. Disability is entirely different, because it's self-evident. We're not discussing the aged/disabled etc.

3) "Removing the sting" from poverty is an act of neglectful cruelty. We don't remove the sting of consequences for our children, because we love them enough to avoid enabling any incorrect notions about life - notions which will ultimately do them immense harm.

4) None of those address the habit of poor choices (leading to poverty). The only thing that works - with all mammals - is survival instinct. In order to function at our peak, we have to be aware of our proximity to 'starvation' - and know that only our own actions will prevent a collision. When we lose all awareness of the wolf at the door, we no longer do what we need to do to prevent him entering. Heck, we open the door and invite him in!

 

The strategy for the creation of public policy regarding government assistance programs is not accomplished by aligning it with some kind of parenting model or philosophical mush, which, apparently, the entirety of your premise is predicated upon.

 

That 'mush' is also known as working with human nature, instead of against it. When you work with human nature, you provide parameters which enable us to function at our peak. When you work against human nature, you provide parameters which enable us to fail.

I have no insight into why you believe the parenting/children example isn't valid. Perhaps you believe that parents and children are not subject to human nature? Perhaps you believe that our human nature morphs into something completely alien once we reach a certain age? It's a very odd belief, either way. Especially when you consider that social anthropologists and other interested researchers use rats as analogues for human nature.