Has Leif ever applied for government assistance? Has his living expenses ever depended on it? Does he even know how much people on government assistance receive for things like food and whatnot? And his excuse is that this information is hard to come by, it is not at all hard to come by. The only thing conservatives can use to justify their continued assaults on poor people is bullshit anecdotes and speculation about how they "must be gaming the system".

"But you are more likely to succeed if you work hard." - It's just a weakened version of the same idea, it's still an idea that comes from the same social and political framework. My point stands.

I disagree. I think one of the things that holds people back is a perception that it is all futile. Yes life is hard, but it is even harder if you give up completely. Its a psychological trap that lower-socioeconomic groups are more likely to fall into. I am not saying that it is their fault (I tend not to think in terms of moral judgement), but I would always encourage someone to do their best. We can often achieve far more than we give ourselves credit for. Thus when designing programs to help disadvantaged people a core component must be to help them to empower themselves as far as is possible. It is rarely helpful to think of ones self as a victim. For an individual trying to improve their lot, the question should not be *why* am I so disadvantatged but *how* can I can advantage myself.

Here's a personal anecdote for your personal anecdote. I have a relative who got a bad back injury when he was a construction worker. He currently lives on disability payments, you know the people you attack for "living off the government tit for years & years". The government is trying to end his disability payments, based on a single doctor's examination from Social Security in which the doctor said that because he could bend over once, he was just fine to do a 40 hour job doing routine lifting.

And it took him over a year just to prove that he was seriously injured and couldn't work. He spent all of 2006 doing physical therapy for his back. He has pins in it. He ruptured multiple disks. He can't lift anything remotely heavy, and when he's on his feet for long periods of time he has serious back pain.

But this is how ridiculous and stingy the welfare state in America is, that a person with a destroyed back is declared 'ok' because he could bend one time.

And you think poor people are exploiting the system? Exploiting it for what, section 8 housing and $200 a month in money for food? Get real.

Why don't you complain about the rich people who evade taxes because they have highly paid accountants who find them all these loopholes, why don't you complain about people who actually work for a living paying more taxes than people who live off capital gains. But no, you can't do that, because being rich = working hard. And selfish, evil humans suddenly become unselfish the more rich and powerful they become.

I dare say that Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon have unjustly exploited the system for more money at taxpayer expense than all of the fraud and grifts from the bottom 40% of the economic bell curve combined.

@ spyman - You're still blaming the poor for their situation, look at what you're saying. You're still saying it's on them. It's not. It's on all of us. We are all responsible, poor, rich, middle class, white, black, all of us, responsible. All of us. The solution isn't to tell poor people what to do to fit into the system, the problem is because of everyone, the only effective solution, involves EVERYONE. It's not working class people who are broken and need to change, it's the system that's broken, it's the system that needs to change.

"You're still blaming the poor for their situation, look at what you're saying."

I am not blaming anyone for anything. And I am not arguing that the system doesn't have to change. That is something that you are trying to see in my words that is not there. I actually think that what you seem to be saying is really damaging to people.

It works both ways. If governments want change then governments must instigate change. But it is equally true for an individual that must do the best they can for themselves, not for of some moral reason, but out of practical necessity. If my friend is down I won't being doing him any favours telling him that there is nothing he can do because the system us fucked. Even if the system is fucked i am still going to help him do the best he can with what he has. That is all anyone can ask of themselves.

What to do about the system, is another debate.

"the only effective solution, involves EVERYONE"
I agree with that, but everyone includes the poor.

I mean, I take your point, spyman, I seems to me where we're disagreeing with each other is in which direction the pressure is now. I just think that the truth is, very few people really understand how thoroughly the deck is stacked against marginalized people right now. You seem to feel the opposite. You seem to feel that everyone knows that and that there isn't enough emphasis on individual responsibility. I honestly don't see how you can say or think that, but I guess you have your reasons.

Also, spyman, surely the first step in fomenting social change is exposing injustice for what it is. I mean, if people aren't aware something is unjust, why will they want to change it? It's not about telling people "the deck is stacked against you, just give up now". But surely also, telling people "You need to work harder and change your attitude and you're more likely to be successful!" in a way, kinda serves to deny the injustices which undoubtedly exist. By putting the onus to change on them, aren't you in a way also implicitly putting the blame on them, even if unintentionally?

What exactly are the poor supposed to do, Spyman? What would you have them do that they supposedly aren't already doing?

Mafia I think you assume that the obvious solution is perhaps more welfare (is that right?). If that really is the solution, good, lets do that. But is it really the solution? Obviously it depends where the welfare is directed and how it is directed, but i think there is such a thing as welfare dependancy, like a kind of addiction, that can do more harm than good. I think society needs a safety net, but people are people and they respond to incentives. If you take away the incentive for people to help themselves, over generations you will see some serious problems.
There an assumption from some liberals that conservatives don't care. This might true for some conservatives but there are conservatives who do care, they just disagree about strategy. (btw i am not saying that i am a conservative, obviously compared to Putin I am not compared with many others in this forum).
The other thing is you are tslking from an American perspective. I think we have far more benefits here in Australia. I think our conservatives would be considered liberals in America (which is funny, our conservative party is called the liberal party).

With regards to Putins comments about rich tax cheats, I think there is more community outrage about that than he gives people credit for. I know that for my country I would definitely support radical tax reform.

The people who need the 'attitude' adjustment are the ones who continually praise this broken capitalist system to the high heavens and act as if it actually works. Nothing will change so long as a large group of people think the status quo is wonderful.

"This might true for some conservatives but there are conservatives who do care, they just disagree about strategy"

Care about what? The poor? Then why do they continually attack programs for the poor while defending anything that benefits the rich?

Indeed, conservatives cry 'class warfare' when anybody brings up any social inequality whatsoever. Conservatives defend social inequality as natural, inevitable, and even good. Sorry if I don't share your view that they care. They care much more about virtually everything else, if they care at all.

@ spyman - I'm Canadian, we have a stronger welfare state than the US does. I think the US could afford to get at least to Canadian levels of welfare stateness. And I think they could afford to go further than that too. I don't think there is enough community outrage about rich people who avoid taxes. There's virtually none.

But also I'm not sure I'd argue that more welfare alone is the solution. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I think change needs to be more radical than that.
Also you mentioned welfare dependency. I'm skeptical of this argument too. I'm sure it could happen, and again, I'm not going to argue that it never happens, but as a widespread, chronic problem the evidence just really doesn't support that. People opposed to welfare states, or in favour of scaling them back, always create these windmills to tilt at, welfare dependency, welfare fraud, etc.

I agree that inequality is inevitable under capitalism. And if that that is really what matters, how much you have compared with other people, rather than how much you have in absolute terms, then socialsm wins. It is more equal. But everyone is poorer, including the poor.

But I can be open-minded about this. Maybe a more equal society is a reasonable trade-off for a poorer society. If that is what really matters, and that is what makes people happy, then maybe it is better. IF that is true.

I suspect of course you disagree with the part about everyone being poorer because you believe a command economy can be as productive as a market economy. IF this is true, then sign me up.

But it doesn't seem to be true. It is wrong for theoretical reasons, and it has been a dismal failure in practice.

But still Putin, I concede you have previously suggested reasons for why socialist countries have been unfairly disadvantaged (ostracision from international trade, is that right?). And some of your arguments have had some good points. But I am not convinced. And I remain an economic conservative (but not a social conservative).

To be clear that was to Putin, and when I say socialism I mean like in the USSR.

Studies suggest that the overall happiness level in a society has much more to do with social inequality than absolute wealth. As long as the gap between rich and poor is small, the people will be quite happy. In fact the country that comes out on top in a lot of life satisfaction surveys and such is Bhutan. Not kidding.

Then what is your solution? You say a more generous welfare is not. A command economy is not. Does there even need to be a solution, in your view? Or is everything working more or less how it should?

My solutiom: Run the economy according to sound economic principles. Spend money on education. Give welfare to people who really need it. That sort of thing. Actually I think Australia is a great country to live in. Its not perfect, but you I there is a lot of room for social mobility. The system needs some tweaks but it is the close to best system available.
The area where we are totally lost is aboriginal welfare. No. One seems to know what to do about that and it is a tradgedy.

"Studies suggest that the overall happiness level in a society has much more to do with social inequality than absolute wealth"

This is the best argument socialism has. And it is a strong argument. Unfortunately, looking at Europe, relatively socialist policies seem to be accompanied by high unemployment.

I don't necessarily think that's the best argument socialism has, I just thought it seemed like relevant information.

"Run the economy according to sound economic principles." Can you be more specific?

"Give welfare to people who really need it." This is a subjective idea that requires drawing an arbitrary line somewhere.

What could be a better argument than promoting happiness?

Sound economics? Market economy, low tax, free trade, structure the economy so that people have an incentive to work hard.
Alas it is 3am here. So i can't go into to detail. Must sleep now.

Sorry Mafia for thinking you were American. Canadian, I'll be sure to remember that.