|
mugrim posted:I don't disagree with your point in general, but who do you know on just SSI who is receiving 900/mo? Current maximum is just about 720/mo. Are you sure you're not counting a state program on top of it, or a different program like Adult Child? For myself, I saw the culpability of the Democrats in dismantling welfare under Clinton, and I feel like they've never strongly taken up the banner again. Obama has been kind of okay, but he keeps focusing it in terms of work, which I think is strategically bad. Some people are going to just need welfare all their lives, and we as a society should be fine with that. Some of these are single mothers, others are just badly-educated, dirt-poor, in some depressed area. I personally support a guaranteed minimum income (along with a host of other stuff that'd have to happen to make sure that GMI was sufficient) but I feel we're politically light-years away from achieving that right now. There are very few Democrats, or even Socialists, championing the rhetoric of just taking care of people because it's the basically human and decent thing to do, instead it's cast into the mode of utility. Being cast as utility means that the arguments for the efficacy of it are a lot harder to sell, because people believe the counter-argument "Giving people money stops them looking for work" sort of innately, even though it's not true and dumb. So while I totally think that problems with SSD are important and that the lack of support is a crying shame, I also don't like the tying of support to disability in particular, because I think it gives away a large part of the argument. I'd rather argue from the position that our insanely wealthy country can easily support a basic GMI, which would also be an enormous boost to our economy. It is the harder sell, but I think that by getting stuck in "When is it appropriate or not to give social security benefits out" we will lose as often as we win and benefits will go back and forth between lovely-but-sustainable and frankly-you-can't-live-on-this.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah. The "lack of good alternatives" argument seems like a strong argument for a GMI and a second New Deal, not for reductions in the SSDI program. I seriously think that we could sell the idea of a GMI to a certain category of libertarian conservatives by telling them "Think of the suckers you'll be able to scam!" The sad part is that a GMI is really only the start of what we need to give people to be financially okay in this crapsack world; we need to actually educate the populace, especially in science and statistics. Instead, the state runs a lottery, which is like literally taking advantage of how bad the citizenry is at really understanding probability. And yes, I know some people know the odds and play for 'fun'. The people who can afford it least, however, really believe in 'luck' and the government should be helping those people out, not taking their lunch money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:most private companies that employ blue collar workers go to great lengths to manage their diabetics and heart patient employees to keep them well enough to stay at work. Where the hell are you getting this poo poo from? esquilax posted:If you are able to hold a job at Wal-mart You don't earn a sustainable income at most Wal-Mart jobs. And one thing that kills the employability of chronically ill people, like people with bad backs, diabetes, etc., is that they tend to have a high rate of absenteeism due to illness and thus can't actually, honestly, hold a lot of jobs. Most employers will not employ someone who will be out frequently dealing with medical stuff and/or might be out for a solid week when their back goes out. You're wrongly looking at this as "Could this person do this job for one day?" when you have to look at the way their actual employment would play. For example, while employers have to make accommodation for disability, including giving time off to people with a chronic disease that flares up, they don't have to pay you for those hours. A lot of people can do a job, but are realistically only going to be able to commit to 20 hours a week when they're going to be in good enough shape to do the job.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:51
|
|