Welfare State and Value of Humans.

Who said there was a wife and kids?

And if the postulated wife and kids exist and are destitute, shouldn't society take care of their every need?

 

Well, that you would disparage universal healthcare puts you in the minority. Most people on Earth support universal healthcare.

 

The question is, what are the definitions of "needs" in the first sentence and "make ends meet" in the third sentence. Exactly what resources are required to survive?

One could say "a tent, warm clothing, a sack of potatoes, and some water."
Others would say "a fully furnished apartment with big screen TV, cable, internet, X-box game system, the latest version of the I-phone with unlimited service, a Ford Expedition with 22" rims, sirloin steak, and and their favorite alcoholic beverage."

For those receiving welfare who believe they deserve a magnificent lifestyle, well, if they don't get all that, they just might turn to crime to get what they think is rightfully theirs. Especially when there is a "I am a victim of society mentality."

When those welfare payments become entitlements, the receivers lose their appreciation and began to expect way more than they need. Greed takes over and their greed rivals that of the billionaires. Then you get threads like this one. "Not fair, society doesn't give me everything I want!"

Questions: What kind of shelter does Scandinavia supply to those in need? What kind of food? If they can't have possessions, how do they cook? How do they spend their free time? Can they have clothes? (You said they can't have any possessions)

Same here in the States.

If only it was that way here.

Lots of that here.

Edit to add: Things aren't as bad in the States as others would have you believe. The media obviously plays to the negatives. The "victims" are always going to be vocal. The way they portray it, there are starving kids on every street corner.

Reality is that America is a still a great place, and hundreds of millions are doing wonderfully, the American Dream is in full swing. Don't let the isolated incidents and loud mouths persuade you any differently.

Come visit me sometime and we can drive through the various areas of the large city I live in and you won't see any starving children.

 

The state doesn't have rights, only people have rights.

 

Which makes it an excellent platform from which to corrupt and manipulate, unfortunately.

 

The state has more rights then anyone -- The State has a right to use force and take taxes.

 

At least care for poor people is an important part of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

The State has right and duty to provide for the needs of all citizens. In Scandinavia that is achieved by taxing the very rich.

 

Not really. I am among 44 million US citizens who have Disability -- I have Moderate Depression and Moderate Autism.

 

No it doesnt. "The state" in a concept, concepts do not and can not have rights. It is no more viable to say "love" has rights.

Only people, sentient beings, have rights.

 

No it doesnt. "The state" in a concept, concepts do not and can not have rights. It is imposdible. It is no more viable to say "love" has rights.

Only people, sentient beings, have rights.

 

In addition to what I said in my last quote.

Say I took your advise and sold half of my stuff and just gave it away. It would be about enough so maybe a dozen people would be at about the median average for the US for a year. Sounds good right? I mean why do I need all that for myself and my family? Well other than because I am the one that earned it through hard work and sacrifice,,, Just because you have a high network does not mean you have a lot of money. Yes I receive a return from it. But with that I pay property managers, accountants, investment professionals, ect ect. Now their ability to earn has been hindered as has my ability to donate to charities (as I said I donate heavily) as would be their ability to do so. And next year those two dozen families are right back in the same boat they were in before. No real good was done and everyone is worse off.

 

Welfare doesn’t provide items, it provides allowances in the form of money.

* LODGING: A rented abode, normally a flat. They have the choice of receiving money and paying rent themselves or having welfare pay it directly.

* HOME FACILITIES: Usually an allowance (within the frame of your situation, i.e. married/children or single) whereby you are free to shop for furniture (IKEA most often than not) and welfare foots the bill.

* FOOD: The monthly welfare payment is more than enough so that you won’t need to eat pasta, rice, and potatoes. They eat like anybody else without the delicacies or a 100 kr bottle of wine.

* CLOTHING: Again, the monthly allowance is more than adequate if you don’t need designer haberdasheries.

* TRANSPORT: As I said you cannot own an automobile. Instead, welfare pays for a monthly bus/train card.

* AMENITIES: I’m not sure about things such as TV, X-box, I-phone. But one is required to have a telephone and I am sure welfare has some sort of allotment for that.

I am a very average citizen yet me and my family go abroad twice each year, usually to the Mediterranean, and we could afford to go three times if we really wanted to. I doubt the welfare people are able to travel even once each year. I did meet an American guy here many years ago who was surviving on welfare. When his mother died he was given a return plane ticket to attend her funeral in New York.

We don’t have a “I’m a-gonna’ be rich some day!” mentality. We don’t look down on those with less-paying jobs, or those who live in flats rather than houses. We have billionaires and we have those who are on welfare but they can both sit next to one another on the city bus and discuss the weather together and then greet each other with a “have a nice day!” as they part.

I agree with that. The main difference is that here in Scandinavia we strive to eliminate “the isolated incidents” rather than to accept them as “part of life”. Americans might see the incidents as “tough tittie” but we see it as a national failure.

Thank you very much. I lived about 20 years in the US. I even did military service there and I am a Vietnam Veteran.

 

From the fact that we employ professionals to GOVERN.

 

Thank you for answering the questions!

So those Scandinavians on welfare actually are allowed to own possessions?

Like I said in the previous post, much of the conflict concerning welfare in America concerns exactly how much should the givers give, and how much do the takers get to take.

Since Scandinavia has historically been much less diverse than America, I can understand that Scandinavian Society would be much more cohesive. Same culture, same goals, same values, same direction. But in America, there are just too many differing beliefs, cultures, and subcultures for everyone to be on the same page. And then there are the "advocates" who self appoint themselves as spokesmen for the various sub-groups - they claim that the sub-group is being oppressed by some other group, and that the other group is EVIL!!!! The victim mentality runs rampant in some sub-groups, and it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Why try to achieve the American Dream when those EVIL people are just going to derail your efforts?"

Does Scandinavia have "poverty advocates" that continually portray the productive citizens/government as "too stingy to provide for the poor"?

Is there constant clamoring for "more more more free hand-outs" at taxpayer expense from those drawing benefits?

Do those receiving benefits strive to get off them, or is there a sub-culture of generational welfare? Single parents begat single parents on and on and perpetually supported by the taxpayer?

I completely understand. Society probably feels like a "large extended family" in Scandinavia. Not like that here. Too many differences. And it sucks to extend a hand, only to be shot down and verbally abused for not having done more. A taxpayer can certainly become jaded by the whole thing. Why give when it isn't appreciated? There will never be enough to satisfy the unlimited entitlement mentality that exists in the U.S. so at some point, the providers simply have to say "NO MORE!"

Don't take the above wrong, America rocks. The vast majority goes to work each day and takes care of their own.
(I apologize for my generalities to the poster above who was grateful for the welfare benefits they have received.)

Much respect from me to you. Thank you!

 

That response has all kinds of holes (the most obvious is that in America we do not employ "professionals" to govern- I mean can anyone really consider a peanut farmer a a failed real estate mogul to be "professionals that govern"? not to mention of the local level, few even get paid)) , but I'll let BHK rip into it.

 

Why the feeling of entitlement? The US is a Constitutional Republic, all the people are equal (in priciple) and the rights Americans have are outlined in the Constitution. All other things a citizen wants has to be earned, found, or paid for.

 

Judging by the overall response from Americans it looks more like a conflict on whether or not to offer ANY SORT OF ASSISTANCE, be it money, medical accessibility, housing …..

We have had a fairly long tradition of taking in people from other parts of the world. Putting aside the luscious, big-breasted women our Viking ancestors dragged back from their conquests ...... we have also welcomed Walloons, refugees from every Nazi-occupied nation in Europe, Yugoslavs and Poles (from the Cold War period), Vietnamese “boat people”, Iranian refugees escaping the “Islamic Revolution”, thousands upon thousands of Chilean refugees from the Pinochet civil war, and multi-thousands from all of the Yugo-Bosni-Croat- Sloven-Kosovo fiasco. All (OK not each and every one) have integrated and continue to contribute to my country, our laws, our culture, and our language. So we are not so homogeneous as many people across the ocean think.

On a dirtier note, there is a very, very dark spot on our recent history (read current events) that has to do with the migrant crisis. Our government is handling it very badly and I don’t even want to talk about it.

We don’t have poverty.

We do have activists making all kinds of outrageous “demands” but we don’t usually take them very seriously. Some are do-gooder dreamers who think we should live in the street and give our homes to the migrants and Romanian gypsy beggars (a relatively small group who advocate such madness), and an even smaller group of supremacist neo-Nazis who think everyone who is not white or European should be tossed out.

Sure there must be those who try to find all of the loopholes in the system to get as much money as possible without doing squat for the community. I don’t think there are many people who can carry on looking over their shoulder every day of their life but I know they must exist.

Single-parenting is no problem in Scandinavia. Day-care is free, maternity (and post-maternity) benefits and free time is guaranteed for both father and mother. Single parents are integral parts of the community. They work.

I see that problem as one borne of a system that encourages envy. America likes to call it competitiveness, something good. We don’t see it that way. We are not afraid of becoming destitute. We rely (until further notice) on our system so we don’t go about life bracing ourselves for the next confrontation with someone who is trying to take everything from us.

Thank you!

 

Look up the word "professional".

 

They have even less use for you, and by the way, your reply does nothing to refute the post you responded to. At all.

 

What we see vomited up as "choice" in our political system as far as representation for the unsubstantial people goes are "professional" pimps, would be self absorbed celebrities, revolving door lobbyist carpet bagger/representative charlatans and Wall Street wealth redistribution coyotes.

The white house is always populated by Goldman Sachs regardless of electoral outcomes.

 

Who is "we'? If I have anything to do with, I'd fire them all and not replace them.

Oh, you probably think that your vote has anything to do with how you are ruled over. You get a small selection to pull a lever for and that's your illusion of choice.

 

What difference does it make? You argument boils down to this:

"Government has a right to tax because it is made up of professionals."

Does that make sense to you? I can't make sense of it. Explain your logic, please.

 

Maybe you are right -- power structure keeps people in need by design. I am not an expert on Economy. I am a mathematician.

 

It isn't the power structure that keeps people in need. It's their belief that they are being kept in their hole that does.