Text 15444, 130 rader
Skriven 2007-06-15 18:55:25 av Carl (1857.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1181935812.777819.186880@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 7:19 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181535139.668954.249140@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I don't think it unreasonable that if the government is going to seize
>> assets to support someone else that we should be able to ask
>> that person to finish high school.... and possibly perform some sort
>> of community service on a continuing basis while they are receiving
>> assistance.
>
> in principle i dont think its unreasonable to expect folks to take
> responsibilty for themselves, giving back where and when it's
> appropriate.  my one hesitation is that often this desire for a
> 'manditory payback' is more a move to beholden those recieving
> assistance (nothing directed at you personal, mind) and does little to
> demonstate a citizens societal obligations; which exsist both at the
> giving ('seized') and the receiving end.

Not my intent.  It was more along the lines of treating it like a job.
A person gets paid for services rendered rather than as a hand out.
If you can't find a job, the government can pay you to something that
needs doing until you find something better.

>
>> > since we are too enlightened to cull the
>> > bottom 8% or so of our population every now and again, if left
>> > unassisted the 'under class' let's call it, will become a growing
>> > liability.  public assistance programs mitigate, to a degree, against
>> > unbridled all american.......progress.
>>
>> Hmmm...that paragraph makes me want to respond in about 8 different
>> ways...but I'll refrain from putting you through all that.
>>
>
> thanks :^)  reading it again a few days out, it does seem a
> bit...precocious.  lol
>
>
>> If we had social programs that were successful in pulling people
>> up,then as a society we could be more productive and devote
>> more money to other important things.  Unfortunately what we're
>> doing now isn't making society better, it *might* be just treading water.
>>
>> Imagine what we could do for <pick your favorite causes...
>> the arts, health care, NASA,  cancer research, energy development
>> et., >...if we could actually significantly reduce spending on social
>> programs because the *need* diminished.
>>
>> Most federal programs seem to have topped out in how effective
>> they are...and I don't know many people that are all that impressed
>> with the results.  Once it's a federal program (no matter which side
>> put it in place) it's there forever, and if you ever suggest any change,
>> someone will scream "But it's not a perfect change so you can't do that!"
>> (as if the current system were perfect).
>
> i don't disagree that there is always a better way to spend money.
> i've been reading up on 'block grants' from the feds to the states
> back in the 90's trying to determine if it's even possible for
> medicare programs to be better managed at the state level with
> 'minimal' interferance from the federal government.  i'd love to say,
> oh, yes!  the states can do it better, just give them the money no
> strings attached.   not sure i can.

Why would the feds have to give the states the money? The feds could
define standards, but let the states collect the money and administer
the programs.

The states already have welfare and health programs. In many cases there's
overlap.  A number of states are coming up with their own versions of
universal health care.

Why do we have to have both federal and state versions?


>> I wish we'd spend substantially more on fraud detection and prosecution.
>> Most of our programs have huge amounts of fraud (estimates ranging up 
>> from
>> 15-50% depending on the program).  This is not unique to the US. I
>> understand that the rates are similar in other countries.  Australia is
>> known to keep the best statistics on such things and their estimate
>> reaches 50% for welfare fraud.
>
>
> i have (had? we've lost touch) a friend who worked for the fed at one
> time.  he said one of the best ideas they ever had was requiring
> parents to provide social security numbers for dependant children on
> their tax filings.  millions of children just disappeared off the face
> of the earth from one tax year to the next.
>
> is there welfare fraud?  sure.  but the system needs to be smarter,
> less vulnerable to abuse.

There seems to be very little effort to do that though.

>> To the degree that we can all be convinced to work for the common good,
>> that's great.  Freedom is lost whenever someone is compelled though.
>
> yes and no.  there are shades of grey there.  taxes being one of
> them. :^)

Sure, there are shades of gray...and everyone weighs them differently.

I had a conversation recently in which it was argued that the feds should do
those things that it can do best/most efficiently.

If you want to be the most efficient, have a dictatorship. Of course that
efficiency comes at the cost of freedom.  I add that cost when weighing
those shades of gray.  Others are predisposed to wanting the
feds to have the power and are much less critical.

The more power the feds have, the more ability they have to inflict
a single (politically correct) view of how you should live your life.

Carl


"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is 
best for society."
--  Hillary Clinton, 1993

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and 
for all."
-- Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist 
Party
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)