Even Critics of Safety Net Depend on It Increasingly

[jacko]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share

[dman]

Sorry, I just don't quite agree with what the article is trying to say.

Let's say I thought it's wrong to reward people with cash just for procreating. I may lobby against it...but if the IRS says I qualify for an extra refund because I have kids, I'm going to take it.

I could be against being forced to pay for Unemployment Insurance (or rather, for my employer to be forced to pay in when theoretically they could increase my hourly wage instead), but if I qualify for it, I'm going to take it.

I might be against any kind of socialized healthcare, but if the government offers it to my mother free of charge, I'm not going to say "No thanks."

Now...I'm not saying I'm for or against ANY of those things. Just saying...there's a difference between accepting money or a service that's offered to you, vs you thinking it should have been offered in the first place.

[GoingDown]

I don't understand your point on this dman.

Are you saying it's okay for you to get benefits from the government, but you don't want anyone else to get them?

[dman]

I don't understand your point on this dman.

Are you saying it's okay for you to get benefits from the government, but you don't want anyone else to get them?

Nope. I'm saying it's ok to think the government shouldn't offer a certain benefit, but still take advantage of it.

In the example above, let's say I have kids, but think the IRS shouldn't give tax credits simply for having kids. Come tax time, I'd have no problem saying I have dependents, and will gladly cash the refund check they send.

I could be against unemployment insurance being mandatory. But right now it IS mandatory, like it or not. So if I ever qualify to make a claim, I'm going to take advantage of it.

It might be easier to look at it the other way around. I may not like the fact that the speed limit on the highway I take to work is only 55; I may want it to be 70. But it's the law, and I'm going to follow it. I'll follow the letter of the law...sometimes it's to my detriment (takes longer to get to work) or to my advantage (free money for food, score!).

I may or may not like certain laws, social programs, tax loopholes, etc., but I'm going to take full advantage of what's available to me.

Again...I'm not saying I'm for or against any of the programs I listed. Only saying one can be against a social program, but once it's in place might as well take full advantage of what's offered.

[lorelei]

But there's no law that says you have to accept unemployment when you are laid off. However, there is a law that says you must obey posted speed limits. I still see it as you choosing to take advantage of something while arguing against it. Or, as was said above, that it's OK for you to have it, but you'd rather no one else get it.

[SweetGeorgia]

I thought it was an interesting article, but I was disappointed because the author seemed to uncritically accept the idea that "the revenue and spending of the United States government works EXACTLY THE SAME as that of your average consumer household." No, it's not the same. Not at all.

It is that concept which made most of the people in the article critical of the safety net. They believe they are receiving something which is an unnecessary frill to a household of reduced income. Like they're the Starbucks coffee bought by an unemployed person.

In addition to the budget equivalency fallacy, it's as if they have absorbed the bill-collector mentality: paying Citibank is more important than feeding your children. And that's where it came into sharp focus for me. These folks are in moral crisis because they are doing what it takes to survive - hmm, where have I seen that before?

It's like a cultural Stockholm Syndrome where we've all been taken hostage by banks and hedge fund managers.

[banca rotta]

Again...I'm not saying I'm for or against any of the programs I listed. Only saying one can be against a social program, but once it's in place might as well take full advantage of what's offered.

You're not unique dman. This is pretty much the American way in the modern world we live in.

I admire your honesty.

We went from JFK's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" to 312 million Americans living by dman's quote.

Again you all wonder why I post the comments that I do. Dman's quote speaks for tens of millions and is the nail in the coffin.

[dman]

I dunno. Compare it to Buffet. He's not going to pay a penny more in taxes than he has to. If there's a legal loophole somewhere, some way to keep more of his money, he's going to take advantage of it. However, he brought it to the attention of the media, saying it's not right that people working for him are paying a much higher percentage in taxes than he does.

I myself have stated that I'm in favor of a different tax system, even though it'd mean I have to pay more in taxes (once you figure in child credits and what-not, we're paying a negative amount). So, I'll continue to "work the system" to my benefit, but will occasionally post how it's just not right

An almost example. We would have qualified for food stamps not long ago as far as income. Had too much in liquid assets (doesn't take much). If circumstances were just a tiny bit different...I would have opened a Roth IRA backed by a savings account. Dumped all the "extra" money in there. File a claim, be completely honest about our assets. They wouldn't count retirement accounts against us. Then all I'd have to do is slowly withdraw the money as I needed, penalty free (one can withdraw 100% of their Roth IRA contributions without penalty...it's when you withdraw earnings that you get into huge penalties). Had I done so...I'd have posted about it somewhere. #1: to help those who are truly in need (if you just lost your job, have only $1,000 in an emergency fund, no job prospects, kids to feed...gotta stretch that dollar as far as you can) and #2: to draw attention to a potentially serious loophole.