Helping Hands

Printable View

11-09-2010, 06:46 PM
GGT

Helping Hands

So much of our society is centered around Helping Hands, with a consumer twist.

That's when "Service Industries" sounded like the next best thing since sliced bread. Because we could make a living by Helping others, and society would benefit. There would be self-sustaining concentric circles of knowledge, civility, and profit.

A needs-based model where everyone was connected, but globally. Call it capitalism from the desire-based angle.....

Education, health care, child care, elder care. Military, police forces, security. Food aid, housing aid, disaster aid, Community services. Technology and communications. Insurance and financial products. Fast or frozen food, drive-up dry cleaners, mail order shopping. E-billing, cell phones, computers. Energy and transportation innovation. Even entertainment can be considered a valuable societal service that Helps.

The list goes on and on. Helping Hands, helping humans.

"Spreading the wealth around" has hit the wall, since a louder voice keeps talking about the evils of SSSocialism or collectivism. It's turned from an ideological philosophy to a political one, from theory to reality.

Some of those complaints have merit....hand-out or hand-up, give a fish or teach to fish.....but the loudest complaint seems to be about the money. Their money. Taking their money (like a gun to the head) to help others. Us vs Them. Starving the Beast is the only way to get their money back. Damn civil society.

But what good is their money, if a whole society has been relegated to needs-based services that are so expensive, only that top tier can buy them?

If the people who are buying desire-based services have all the discretionary capital that funds the needs-based services, then....

How is that Helping?
11-09-2010, 07:02 PM
EyeKhan

You should think of it as greater and greater specialization.
11-09-2010, 07:39 PM
GGT

Sure. But we know as things get more specialized, none of us can really maneuver very well in a truly specialized world. Those who can pay for it can use/exploit that, to their benefit, at others' expense.

Which is rather antithetical to the current "SELF RELIANCE" trend.
11-09-2010, 08:02 PM
EyeKhan

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Sure. But we know as things get more specialized, none of us can really maneuver very well in a truly specialized world. Those who can pay for it can use/exploit that, to their benefit, at others' expense.

Not to pull a Fuzzy, but this is the way the world's worked since humans invented wealth. You might make an argument the more specialized everything gets, the more interdependant we become and the more cohesive a civilization we are blessed with. The current "SELF RELIANCE trend," if that's what you want to call it, is a socially damaging crock of shit. It's just a disguise for "Fuck you, I got mine and I ain't liftin' a finger to help you get yours."
11-09-2010, 08:15 PM
oldmunchkin

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Not to pull a Fuzzy, but this is the way the world's worked since humans invented wealth. You might make an argument the more specialized everything gets, the more interdependant we become and the more cohesive a civilization we are blessed with. The current "SELF RELIANCE trend," if that's what you want to call it, is a socially damaging crock of shit. It's just a disguise for "Fuck you, I got mine and I ain't liftin' a finger to help you get yours."

There are a great many people who really believe that, since they "have" something, everyone who doesn't have should just "fuck off and die"! IMO, those are the people who never had to go without, some never even had to work, and make a point of stepping on the "have nots".
11-09-2010, 08:22 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

...You might make an argument the more specialized everything gets, the more interdependant we become and the more cohesive a civilization we are blessed with. The current "SELF RELIANCE trend," if that's what you want to call it, is a socially damaging crock of shit. It's just a disguise for "Fuck you, I got mine and I ain't liftin' a finger to help you get yours."

Redundant. ;)
11-09-2010, 09:22 PM
EyeKhan

Huh?
11-09-2010, 09:56 PM
']['ear

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Not to pull a Fuzzy, but this is the way the world's worked since humans invented wealth. You might make an argument the more specialized everything gets, the more interdependant we become and the more cohesive a civilization we are blessed with. The current "SELF RELIANCE trend," if that's what you want to call it, is a socially damaging crock of shit. It's just a disguise for "Fuck you, I got mine and I ain't liftin' a finger to help you get yours."

Exactly. That's certainly what Randian types are all about. The BS window dressing doesn't really fool anybody ho knows human nature.
11-10-2010, 09:17 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Huh?

That's what I meant about this self-reliance trend, a crock of shit. Then I see those "Live Free or Die" bumper stickers, driving on state roads or federally funded highways....:hmm:
11-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

There are a great many people who really believe that, since they "have" something, everyone who doesn't have should just "fuck off and die"! IMO, those are the people who never had to go without, some never even had to work, and make a point of stepping on the "have nots".

Yeah...sure.

Your IMO is just that.

Look the there are some bastards in the crowd yes, but not all of us. I've been dirt f-ing poor, with complete uncertainty if I was still going to have a roof and food for a period of time in my life. Now I'm quite comfortable, but still endorse self-reliance as the first line of defense.

What is so wrong to try to get people to a place where they can master their own lives without the help of society? Again most fiscal conservatives here (except for Lewk) know that there should be a saftey net to catch those that fall...but also believe that that net should not become a snare.
11-11-2010, 05:35 PM
GGT

Interesting to see how my [rambling] OP hit different nerves. It was really just my observation of our society's increasing polarization. Lots of people say it's a culture war, or a class war, or a generational war. I think we're in the midst of a philosophical stand-off, though. And it's being borne out in our politics; our ideas of what civil society means, the role of government, how to tax, whom to tax. Some fundamental and structural changes are coming fast because we're broke! So it matters what's a hand-out or a hand-up, who needs help and who's living in learned helplessness.

<I didn't reply to you munchie because it seemed an impulsive, emotional reply to your own situation. But you started your own thread along those lines, so....>
11-12-2010, 07:48 AM
oldmunchkin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Yeah...sure.

Your IMO is just that.

Yup...just my opinion as the majority of the people! Shit, I have worked all my fucking life, and am now getting fucked cause I can't work. Mommymunchkin, if she wasn't working, would be living on.......,.....wait for it.........$436 PER MONTH! FFS she worked all her life, longer than you and I put together have been alive! Tell me that's fucking fair????

Quote:

Look the there are some bastards in the crowd yes, but not all of us. I've been dirt f-ing poor, with complete uncertainty if I was still going to have a roof and food for a period of time in my life. Now I'm quite comfortable, but still endorse self-reliance as the first line of defense.

What is so wrong to try to get people to a place where they can master their own lives without the help of society? Again most fiscal conservatives here (except for Lewk) know that there should be a saftey net to catch those that fall...but also believe that that net should not become a snare.
11-12-2010, 10:19 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Yup...just my opinion as the majority of the people! Shit, I have worked all my fucking life, and am now getting fucked cause I can't work. Mommymunchkin, if she wasn't working, would be living on.......,.....wait for it.........$436 PER MONTH! FFS she worked all her life, longer than you and I put together have been alive! Tell me that's fucking fair????

But your mommy is working, well into her 80s. Even with her illnesses. You've said before that she likes to work and would never retire (even if she could). $400/month sounds paltry, until you look at the low COL in your Wyoming town, and add in food aid and Medicare that she can get pretty cheap. Is it fair? Not really. But it might be equitable. She's not on the streets begging for food or shelter like a bag lady. She gets oxygen and medication to help her live longer. If she needed a wheelchair she would get that, too.

She was married to a rancher, working the land. No 401-k or employer pension plan. Same thing for most farmers or ranchers, or small business people. They knew they had to plan ahead and save where they could. That's where SS becomes crucial. It's based on contributions. A safety net that didn't depend on market fluctuations, a promise guaranteed by the US. Even tho individuals may have underpaid and rely on it, some paid fully but don't need it at all.

There's got to be a way to make SS better for elderly who truly need it, to keep them out of poverty. That was the original intent.
11-12-2010, 02:29 PM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Yup...just my opinion as the majority of the people! Shit, I have worked all my fucking life, and am now getting fucked cause I can't work. Mommymunchkin, if she wasn't working, would be living on.......,.....wait for it.........$436 PER MONTH! FFS she worked all her life, longer than you and I put together have been alive! Tell me that's fucking fair????

It's fair. If she had been smart, she would've saved up for her olden years. Or procreated and forced her children into saving for her, or subsidizing her living in some way. Or, she could join any number of churches or cults and pay lip-service to their mythology in exchange for housing, clothing and food. So long as none of her income comes from precious, sweat-stained tax dollars, it's all fair. If you don't plan ahead, FUCK YOU. Welcome to America, the tea parties are all over.
11-12-2010, 02:44 PM
EyeKhan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

It's fair. If she had been smart, she would've saved up for her olden years. Or procreated and forced her children into saving for her, or subsidizing her living in some way. Or, she could join any number of churches or cults and pay lip-service to their mythology in exchange for housing, clothing and food. So long as none of her income comes from precious, sweat-stained tax dollars, it's all fair. If you don't plan ahead, FUCK YOU. Welcome to America, the tea parties are all over.

:sour:
11-12-2010, 02:45 PM
Nessus

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ot-patriot.gif
11-12-2010, 07:58 PM
oldmunchkin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

But your mommy is working, well into her 80s. Even with her illnesses. You've said before that she likes to work and would never retire (even if she could). $400/month sounds paltry, until you look at the low COL in your Wyoming town, and add in food aid and Medicare that she can get pretty cheap. Is it fair? Not really. But it might be equitable. She's not on the streets begging for food or shelter like a bag lady. She gets oxygen and medication to help her live longer. If she needed a wheelchair she would get that, too.

She was married to a rancher, working the land. No 401-k or employer pension plan. Same thing for most farmers or ranchers, or small business people. They knew they had to plan ahead and save where they could. That's where SS becomes crucial. It's based on contributions. A safety net that didn't depend on market fluctuations, a promise guaranteed by the US. Even tho individuals may have underpaid and rely on it, some paid fully but don't need it at all.

There's got to be a way to make SS better for elderly who truly need it, to keep them out of poverty. That was the original intent.

Unlike many ranchers, my Dad paid into SS for Mom all those years. She also worked outside the home on occasion, like years the grasshoppers ate everything or the cattle prices were waaaaay down!

Yes, our COL is a bit lower here than other places, but when you add in mileage to specialists and decent shopping it pretty were equals out! And, I am betting our food prices and medicine prices, and possibly gas prices, are at least as high as yours, if not higher due to the fact EVERYTHING must be trucked in from long distances away!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

It's fair. If she had been smart, she would've saved up for her olden years. Or procreated and forced her children into saving for her, or subsidizing her living in some way. Or, she could join any number of churches or cults and pay lip-service to their mythology in exchange for housing, clothing and food. So long as none of her income comes from precious, sweat-stained tax dollars, it's all fair. If you don't plan ahead, FUCK YOU. Welcome to America, the tea parties are all over.

Nessus, you know not of what you speak! She and Dad did save for their retirement, when they could. But ya know what, it's damned hard to save much when your yearly income is $20,000 to $25,000. Sure, they got a decent price for the ranch when they sold it, but...then Dad got sick. Yeah, as a veteran, his medical costs were free, but Mom still had to have the money to stay in Rapid City with him, then in Hot Springs for part of his recovery period! Plus, when she wasn't up there, she was commuting a couple times a week to see him. You know, it's called love!
11-12-2010, 11:25 PM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Nessus, you know not of what you speak! She and Dad did save for their retirement, when they could. But ya know what, it's damned hard to save much when your yearly income is $20,000 to $25,000. Sure, they got a decent price for the ranch when they sold it, but...then Dad got sick. Yeah, as a veteran, his medical costs were free, but Mom still had to have the money to stay in Rapid City with him, then in Hot Springs for part of his recovery period! Plus, when she wasn't up there, she was commuting a couple times a week to see him. You know, it's called love!

I wasn't actually suggesting your mother was a useless person who only deserves to be left to rot where she stands, I was deriding the lack of morality and decency in the American culture.
11-12-2010, 11:31 PM
']['ear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

What is so wrong to try to get people to a place where they can master their own lives without the help of society? Again most fiscal conservatives here (except for Lewk) know that there should be a saftey net to catch those that fall...but also believe that that net should not become a snare.

To that extent we agree, then. I greatly mislike how welfare and the like are run. But I also think we need something there. And you must admit that you are a very atypical conservative by saying there should be a safety net. Most would prefer to cut all social supports. "Handouts" and all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

I wasn't actually suggesting your mother was a useless person who only deserves to be left to rot where she stands, I was deriding the lack of morality and decency in the American culture.

Well.

Welcome back, BTW
11-13-2010, 01:55 AM
Catgrrl

The problem is there are GENERATIONS of families living on welfare, which shouldn't happen. Somewhere those people have been failed. So the support needs to be restructured; instead of just giving people stuff all of the time, couldn't there be a work program or schooling to be held to keep benefits beyond a certain extent of time?

It's sad to see grandparents, parents, and kids all living in the same public housing area, all on food stamps, no real healthcare other than the free clinic. We've failed as a society, that we have taught people it is better to get a measly amount of money from the government your whole life than it is to get an education, find a trade or profession, and move out into the world with your head held high. Instead we have people living in close to third world conditions because the government will pick up the tab, and it's too hard to get out of the rut they are stuck in. (But some people still manage to have internet and a 55" TV, so priorities may be askew as well)

I know that people will think this harsh, but if people were willing to work in programs during the Great Depression era, why aren't we doing the same now? Our highways look like shit. Couldn't we use some of our welfare programs to give people work, to help build roadways or whatnot? I know in this vast technological age maybe it seems barbaric to make people do physical labor for their welfare check. THere's probably liability and "expertise" issues, and contractors would have a fit too. And government employees :haha:

Hmm....I just had a weird thought. Maybe if companies could work with the government, getting people who are on welfare jobs, it could also help with illegal immigration issues? But then that may cause complaints that we are making people do "slave labor" for their government money. Hmm, and also liability issues too. I guess that wouldn't work at all.

I don't know the answer. I really don't know what hoops a person has to go through to apply for assistance anyway, so maybe there are already programs in place for those who are interested?
11-13-2010, 12:02 PM
Knux897

Highway restoration programs... not a bad idea actually. Our highways were only built to last a certain amount of time.

Of course I think we should get rid of Welfare completely though. Not that I don't want to help people but our constitution guarentees the pursuit of happiness, not the happiness itself. If Mexicans can constantly come over and get lawn care jobs then why can't those that live on Welfare? Or if this road reconstruction were to come to reality, that as well.