Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:drugs are bad.

Not any more than "guns are bad", no. And I don't believe guns are bad at all.

show me where drugs are good. I will ask ahead of time to remember the topic and what kind of drugs we are talking about.

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

You didn't ask me, but when has that ever stopped me, eh? <grin>

I don't LIKE welfare money being used to buy drugs, because that's not what it's for. But I'm also smart enough to recognize that what I like isn't particularly relevant to the issue.

I also don't like Governors instituting policies which directly benefit them in such a massive way as this Florida bill does.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you are going way off topic here. The topic is not "is drug abuse harmful". We ALL agree it is. The question is whether cutting welfare payments to addicts is a way to either save the tax payers money or move them off drugs. It is neither.

Really? Tell me Player, how does a drug addict gets drugs if they don't have any money?

Phatscotty wrote:why did they need to hide it? It seems to be perfectly fine and normal...

I can't decide here if you're trolling or if you're just stupid.

Phatscotty wrote:speaking of, what happens when if you test positive for drugs in the military?

What do you believe happens when you test positive for drugs in the military?

Phatscotty wrote:I'm not ignoring the possibilities at all, just focusing on one abusive reality.

You say that, but that's not what you're doing.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:drugs are bad.

Not any more than "guns are bad", no. And I don't believe guns are bad at all.

show me where drugs are good. I will ask ahead of time to remember the topic and what kind of drugs we are talking about.

Almost all drugs can be good when used properly. There are very few that honestly cannot be.

So exactly what kind of drugs ARE we talking about, Phatscotty? Because in your ignorance, you seem to believe that people cannot become addicted to prescription drugs. Or are prescription drug addicts ok in your view, even though they're going to have precisely the same problems that you're attributing to illegal drugs? Your inconsistencies are plentiful here.

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

Well, FIRSTLY, I don't pay my taxes in dollars...

Secondly, I don't really see it that way.

In my country, every citizen is entitled to a certain basic level of income - the very minimum income for an adult citizen is the social security which is around 300-350€ a month if I remember correctly (plus rent, electric bills, and pretty much all healthcare / medical costs). If you've been working at least a certain amount (I think it was 6 months the last I checked) then you get on the unemployment money which is somewhat more... To stay on the higher unemployment money you have to be actively seeking for work. But even if you're not seeking for work, you'll still get the social security money, because of the principle that every citizen is entitled to have the basic income to survive.

Which brings me to the point... I don't see social security as something that is "away" from those who work, or that people who work are directly supporting those who aren't working. I see it as a failsafe: you'll always be guaranteed this minimum income, by the government. We all pay some of it, in a sense, yes, but it's more like an insurance: if something happened and you'd some day find yourself out of a job, without a home, etc. then you could also rely on the money given by the government, at least until you're back on your feet.

It's a sort of a safety net. Yeah, there are people who make no effort to get a job, but that's their choice... they also have to get by on a very minimal amount of money. The money really is barely enough for food, you know. So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision. So yeah, you can complain that some people get a free ride, and it really just EATS YOU UP INSIDE that they don't have to work but you do. But those people also have to struggle by with the bare minimum of money, while you who go to work get lots more money and can use it for all kinds of nice stuff.

In a way, it's a trade-off: sure, there will be some who "abuse the system", but it's a fair trade-off for having the safety net available in case anything bad ever happens to you and you need to rely on government help.

So do I care if someone takes his government-given money and spends it on drugs? No, not really. If they were denied money on account of drug use, it would create tons more problems, so rather than doing that, I'd like the government to focus more on offering rehabilitating services to those who struggle with addiction problems.

natty_dread wrote:So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision.

Actually, that will never be a problem anyway. Because with a workforce shortage, wages increase (unless the business wants to go out of business)...when they increase enough to entice the lazy ones out of their do-nothingness, then you have a workforce.

Phatscotty wrote:because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Ah, so big daddy like you has to make sure everyone is living the good life by having drug tests.

I see don't see why your logic shouldn't be applied to those who receive government subsidies--especially the CEOs, Board of Directors, and other big shots in companies that received bailouts. Those guys should be examined to see whether or not they're taking drugs, because according to you, if they take drugs, they shouldn't have that money, because drug habits and abuse don't help people.

So, why only target welfare recipients instead of those who recieve even MORE money from government subsidies? Surely, you would want to bring the maximum benefit to everyone, right?

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

Well, FIRSTLY, I don't pay my taxes in dollars...

Secondly, I don't really see it that way.

In my country, every citizen is entitled to a certain basic level of income - the very minimum income for an adult citizen is the social security which is around 300-350€ a month if I remember correctly (plus rent, electric bills, and pretty much all healthcare / medical costs). If you've been working at least a certain amount (I think it was 6 months the last I checked) then you get on the unemployment money which is somewhat more... To stay on the higher unemployment money you have to be actively seeking for work. But even if you're not seeking for work, you'll still get the social security money, because of the principle that every citizen is entitled to have the basic income to survive.

Hey, natty. How difficult is it to become a Finnish citizen?

Woodruff wrote:Actually, that will never be a problem anyway. Because with a workforce shortage, wages increase (unless the business wants to go out of business)...when they increase enough to entice the lazy ones out of their do-nothingness, then you have a workforce.

Good point. A bit beside the point but a good point nonetheless.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, natty. How difficult is it to become a Finnish citizen?

Beats me, I was born one...

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

Well, FIRSTLY, I don't pay my taxes in dollars...

Secondly, I don't really see it that way.

In my country, every citizen is entitled to a certain basic level of income - the very minimum income for an adult citizen is the social security which is around 300-350€ a month if I remember correctly (plus rent, electric bills, and pretty much all healthcare / medical costs). If you've been working at least a certain amount (I think it was 6 months the last I checked) then you get on the unemployment money which is somewhat more... To stay on the higher unemployment money you have to be actively seeking for work. But even if you're not seeking for work, you'll still get the social security money, because of the principle that every citizen is entitled to have the basic income to survive.

Hey, natty. How difficult is it to become a Finnish citizen?

Well first, you have to grow Finns.

Phatscotty wrote:The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Oh for fucks sake, would you quit talking out of your ass?

Phatscotty wrote:how does a drug addict gets drugs if they don't have any money?

Well gee, let me think about that for a minute.

1) prostitution
2) stealing
3) selling drugs
4) assault, robbery

So rather than a drug addict buying his drugs with his social security / welfare money, you'd have the drug addict either stealing from other people, or doing other crimes, and eventually ending up in jail which again ends up costing the society a whole shitload more. FAIL.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:drugs are bad.

Not any more than "guns are bad", no. And I don't believe guns are bad at all.

show me where drugs are good. I will ask ahead of time to remember the topic and what kind of drugs we are talking about.

First, clarify. Many drugs save lives.

In fact, even the big "no-nos" almost ALL have medicinal use. I believe heroine and LSD are about the only ones not used in specific cases. I myself was given cocaine after surgary. I am hardly an addict. (that was the ONLY time I had it to my knowledge). There is a debate about Marihuana. My stance is, after YEARS of observation and study that it can be harmful for some people (particularly in its current encarnations), but is not for all.

More to the point is that alchohol is very, very problematic for a good many people. I don't see you harping on even making that illegal, nevermind cutting welfare payments of people who drink.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you are going way off topic here. The topic is not "is drug abuse harmful". We ALL agree it is. The question is whether cutting welfare payments to addicts is a way to either save the tax payers money or move them off drugs. It is neither.

Really? Tell me Player, how does a drug addict gets drugs if they don't have any money?

We are not talking about taking away all money from drug addicts, only those on welfare.
Most addicts get their drugs by working.

Anyway, to get back to those on welfare.. natty covered a good many ways those people (and some others) get money if/when welfare stops. Others include begging, mooching off family/aquaintances (as long as they let you.. then just steal when they stop), collecting cans/ other junk to sell. etc.

Truth is, a lot of those you seem to think are on welfare really are not, they are just criminals who don't want that kind of interaction.. no true set address, etc.

drugs are bad because drugs are illegal because drugs are bad?

Woodruff wrote:

natty_dread wrote:So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision.

Actually, that will never be a problem anyway. Because with a workforce shortage, wages increase (unless the business wants to go out of business)...when they increase enough to entice the lazy ones out of their do-nothingness, then you have a workforce.

IF you have a reasonable minimum wage. Here in the US we don't... and we allow some people to be paid even less illegally with only minimal penalty (not counting soldiers which are paid a lot less).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

natty_dread wrote:So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision.

Actually, that will never be a problem anyway. Because with a workforce shortage, wages increase (unless the business wants to go out of business)...when they increase enough to entice the lazy ones out of their do-nothingness, then you have a workforce.

IF you have a reasonable minimum wage. Here in the US we don't... and we allow some people to be paid even less illegally with only minimal penalty (not counting soldiers which are paid a lot less).

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter active

keiths31 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter-productive

Yup.

Player will tell you something like: NUH-UH, minimum wage (as it's currently set) doesn't cause structural unemployment!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter-productive

Yup.

Player will tell you something like: NUH-UH, minimum wage (as it's currently set) doesn't cause structural unemployment!

As a business owner it has caused the loss of jobs at my businesses. For my business to be profitable, a certain % of my revenue goes to labour. If it goes above that %, then I don't make money. So to keep it under that %, I have to cut hours, keep raises in check and raise prices of my products. So it is a trickle down effect. The consumer ends up paying more and their buying power is lessened.

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

Well, FIRSTLY, I don't pay my taxes in dollars...

Secondly, I don't really see it that way.

In my country, every citizen is entitled to a certain basic level of income - the very minimum income for an adult citizen is the social security which is around 300-350€ a month if I remember correctly (plus rent, electric bills, and pretty much all healthcare / medical costs). If you've been working at least a certain amount (I think it was 6 months the last I checked) then you get on the unemployment money which is somewhat more... To stay on the higher unemployment money you have to be actively seeking for work. But even if you're not seeking for work, you'll still get the social security money, because of the principle that every citizen is entitled to have the basic income to survive.

Which brings me to the point... I don't see social security as something that is "away" from those who work, or that people who work are directly supporting those who aren't working. I see it as a failsafe: you'll always be guaranteed this minimum income, by the government. We all pay some of it, in a sense, yes, but it's more like an insurance: if something happened and you'd some day find yourself out of a job, without a home, etc. then you could also rely on the money given by the government, at least until you're back on your feet.

It's a sort of a safety net. Yeah, there are people who make no effort to get a job, but that's their choice... they also have to get by on a very minimal amount of money. The money really is barely enough for food, you know. So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision. So yeah, you can complain that some people get a free ride, and it really just EATS YOU UP INSIDE that they don't have to work but you do. But those people also have to struggle by with the bare minimum of money, while you who go to work get lots more money and can use it for all kinds of nice stuff.

In a way, it's a trade-off: sure, there will be some who "abuse the system", but it's a fair trade-off for having the safety net available in case anything bad ever happens to you and you need to rely on government help.

So do I care if someone takes his government-given money and spends it on drugs? No, not really. If they were denied money on account of drug use, it would create tons more problems, so rather than doing that, I'd like the government to focus more on offering rehabilitating services to those who struggle with addiction problems.

I would also like the government to focus on rehabilitation rather than imprisonment. But that's not what we're doing with drug users anyway (so it's a moot point I suppose).

I would also like the government to focus on providing jobs for those people on welfare (or social security as you call it), which I believe is what the United States attempts to do. I would rather have someone be educated and/or trained for a job to eventually hit the "I'm now a taxpayer and not a parasite" level within our society. You may also want to keep in mind the number (or percentage) of drug users/addicts in the United States compared to the number (or percentage) of drug users/addicts in Finland. I'm not sure they are remotely similar (I'm just guessing though).

Anyway, I think there should be a safety net, but like our founding documents say, it's the "pursuit of happiness" that we have a right to, not merely "happiness." The former phrase indicates some sort of action or activity on the part of the citizen and, unfortunately, our society (drug addicts and non-addicts alike) have become an instant gratification society where it's no longer the "pursuit" that is the key word.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

natty_dread wrote:So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision.

Actually, that will never be a problem anyway. Because with a workforce shortage, wages increase (unless the business wants to go out of business)...when they increase enough to entice the lazy ones out of their do-nothingness, then you have a workforce.

IF you have a reasonable minimum wage. Here in the US we don't... and we allow some people to be paid even less illegally with only minimal penalty (not counting soldiers which are paid a lot less).

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

We might be more like Scandinavia... countries where they have the highest rate of population happiness and well-being in the world.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter-productive

Yup.

Player will tell you something like: NUH-UH, minimum wage (as it's currently set) doesn't cause structural unemployment!

I, along with a good many economists (of which I am not, of course) will agree, though not to doubling it in one fell swoop, of course. And, ironically enough, you can look at several nations around the world for examples.

Pay people more, and in the short term, you do see more layoffs or declines to hire. Mostly they are people who would have been laid off anyway.. either because they were poor workers or because the business was not doing well. The higher wage speeds up what would have happened anyway. Some businesses may hold of a bit longer in hiring. HOWEVER, after 2 years everything balances back out. Businesses that need workers pay what the rate is.

But you also neatly sidestep one of the real points. If you are NOT paying someone enough to get a house, eat, clothe themselves and get health care (and I DO mean living frugally!), then you are saying either these people can work, but its OK that they starve/live on the street OR you are depending on other taxpayers to subsidize them. The fact is if you are NOT paying a living wage, then your business is taking away from the economy and society more than it is giving out.

This is also true when you decide its OK to build a business based on the education you got here, the supports available here, but hey.. its OK to move the production jobs overseas so you can get a fatter paycheck and please the stockholders. Worse, in many cases, our country allows even vital industries to migrate (steel is a classic example) so that if we ever do face another major crisis or war, our country is going to be in very bad shape. YET, those same companies and the people who ran them, their descendents have benefitted from all that income .... and often are now among the biggest complainers about both higher taxes and protectionism (Jr Rockafeller is something of an exception, at least on the surface.. he at least opposed tax breaks to the oil companies which gave his family their fortune.. but I don't know enough to say if that is a consistant stance of his and certainly acknowledge that there are many wonderful people who happen to have inherited wealth... its just there are plenty of the other kind as well).

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Note, I began this to address one specific point by greekdog (scandinavien support sytems), but a lot of this is admittedly not directed at you greekdog, so don't feel I am criticizing your words here. I know you agree with some of what I am saying.

thegreekdog wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

Well, FIRSTLY, I don't pay my taxes in dollars...

Secondly, I don't really see it that way.

In my country, every citizen is entitled to a certain basic level of income - the very minimum income for an adult citizen is the social security which is around 300-350€ a month if I remember correctly (plus rent, electric bills, and pretty much all healthcare / medical costs). If you've been working at least a certain amount (I think it was 6 months the last I checked) then you get on the unemployment money which is somewhat more... To stay on the higher unemployment money you have to be actively seeking for work. But even if you're not seeking for work, you'll still get the social security money, because of the principle that every citizen is entitled to have the basic income to survive.

Which brings me to the point... I don't see social security as something that is "away" from those who work, or that people who work are directly supporting those who aren't working. I see it as a failsafe: you'll always be guaranteed this minimum income, by the government. We all pay some of it, in a sense, yes, but it's more like an insurance: if something happened and you'd some day find yourself out of a job, without a home, etc. then you could also rely on the money given by the government, at least until you're back on your feet.

It's a sort of a safety net. Yeah, there are people who make no effort to get a job, but that's their choice... they also have to get by on a very minimal amount of money. The money really is barely enough for food, you know. So what if some people "abuse" the system and don't get work? I don't see that a problem unless there's shortage of workforce. Which isn't going to be the case in any near future - unemployment is only going to increase in the future, with technology being developed and more jobs being able to be done with less human supervision. So yeah, you can complain that some people get a free ride, and it really just EATS YOU UP INSIDE that they don't have to work but you do. But those people also have to struggle by with the bare minimum of money, while you who go to work get lots more money and can use it for all kinds of nice stuff.

In a way, it's a trade-off: sure, there will be some who "abuse the system", but it's a fair trade-off for having the safety net available in case anything bad ever happens to you and you need to rely on government help.

So do I care if someone takes his government-given money and spends it on drugs? No, not really. If they were denied money on account of drug use, it would create tons more problems, so rather than doing that, I'd like the government to focus more on offering rehabilitating services to those who struggle with addiction problems.

I would also like the government to focus on rehabilitation rather than imprisonment. But that's not what we're doing with drug users anyway (so it's a moot point I suppose).

I would also like the government to focus on providing jobs for those people on welfare (or social security as you call it), which I believe is what the United States attempts to do.

Gotta clarify, because you are missing a very fundamental point. Our welfare is NOT equivalent to their social security, not at all.

It is more like a combination of unemployment insurance, social security (both old age and SSI) and only a tad bit of true welfare. Anybody who works pays into the system and yes, it is generally expected that people will work. Mostly they actually do. The biggest difference is that there is less of a benefit from owning. It is much more of a equal society than here. Some folks of course have more, but not the extravagent differences. There is a LOT Of emphasis on not "bragging", on being proud of yourself, but not "putting on airs". I can remember my aunt's neighbors talking about buying such and so (usually clothes) the same so none of them would feel left out. Even the monarchs usually don't technically "own" their castles and such. They are usually owned by the people and are used by the monarches. The monarches do have some wealth, but they encure a big obligation.

Our welfare system was designed to support women with children, who it was just assumed could not support themselves. When passed, there was no controversy at all because the assumption went so deep. A lot of those helped initially were war widows.

The thing is, the system never evolved much beyond that. Because it was geared toward widows (and other single women, though back then they were "not mentionable"), for example, women living with men could not collect. As has been noted many times, this had a profound impact, particularly on the black community at a time when even a hard working and educated black male just could not get more than fairly low paying jobs.

However, as I noted earlier (don't think you disagreed, either), moving people out of welfare often means training, treatment, or even just closer administration and so costs more, at least in the short term. Sometimes (because, let's be honest, most people on welfare just don't have the same basic abilities as weveryone else), moving these people up into a really "good" job costs far more than they could ever "give back" in taxes and such. (Again, its perhaps not "PC", but I see a lot of folks who lack the best mental skills, the best social skills, etc on welfare. They often need a LOT of help). Now, sometimes these facts get buried because there are always a percentage who don't meet that profile. Some people plain are in a bit of bad luck and just need a small leg up to go on and do "better" (financially). So, any new program comes in and in the first few years those people move up and out quickly. BUT, then once you hit the "hardcore" folks... costs go up and success goes down. Some politicians (not referring to any specific group, because you can find examples throughout), like to point to those kind of statistics, but then ignore the longer term projections.

For similar reasons, attempts to ease people into jobs often backfire, particularly in cities where the cost of living is quite high. I can remember an interview with a California woman going through nursing school when rules changed. She was supposed to go out and get a fulltime job instead of completing here nursing degree or she would lose all her assistance. Except, the jobs she could get "only" paid $10 an hour.. a wage that was low enough that landlords would not even consider her application. (true, it was the Bay Area of Ca where things are high). That was an extreme example, but here is the thing. Here in rural PA where I live, a large number of people only make $8-9 an hour. So, what do most people here say when they hear a story like that? She is being greedy! We can get by, why cannot they!

Except.... the people really being greedy are those who want to have a business, benefit from all that places such as the Bay Area provide and not also pay enough in wages that low-skilled people can live there OR pay more in taxes to provide subsidized housing for those individuals. And note, San Francisco, the Bay Area in general is considered a "liberal" area.

thegreekdog wrote: I would rather have someone be educated and/or trained for a job to eventually hit the "I'm now a taxpayer and not a parasite" level within our society.

So would most people. Ironically enough, even those classically labeled as "lazy". The thing is, if you are raised in and surrounded by an environment where you do not see people benefitting from hard work, its hard to even understand that ethic. Its not that everyone living in the projects is stupid (many more wind up that way than start, though), it can also be that they just don't see the ways to get out. What they do see are the "lottery" type events... being a pop star, an athelete or yes, truly winning the lottery. What they see in people working is folks putting in long hours, having no time for things they enjoy and just generally struggling. If that is all you see, then its no wonder you have little impetus to get out. Some do break the mold, but it is very, very difficult.

The way to break it is through education of the young, but again, educating someone who doesn't get taken places with their parents, who may live in a house where though they are supposedly fluent in English, the adults speak very poorly. They may have a TV, but chances are its not turned to Discovery Channel or even Sesame street. Add in kids who don't get enough to eat, who come to school without decent clothes. Educating those kids takes more time and effort because the school has to do it all. Even here, where we have smaller classes, where people generally "care" about themselves and neighbors, we have more than a few idiots. I have watched 2 in particular. One sister was always a bit slow. However, the other was very smart, even perhaps brilliant. But, then she saw some pretty nasty stuff (adult stuff) and last I heard, at age 9 was already into drugs. That would simply not have happened in Scandinavia. Not saying life there is perfect (by a LONG shot!), but the girls would have been taken away or some other intervention occured much earlier.

thegreekdog wrote:You may also want to keep in mind the number (or percentage) of drug users/addicts in the United States compared to the number (or percentage) of drug users/addicts in Finland. I'm not sure they are remotely similar (I'm just guessing though).

If you mean hard drugs, even marihuana, yes. However, alchoholism might actually be worse there. Its just that the cultural impacts are much less. People drive a LOT less... in cities even older people use bikes and even in the winter. (I cannot count the number of times I hear people tell me here in PA that you "just cannot ride bikes in the winter" due to ice ). As I noted above, there is a much more involved social network. Also the stigma of a child coming from a home "with issues" is somehow less there. There is absolutely racism, though its more about what they all "turks" (meaning arabs of any type). However, even then... its not so much the kind of "we know what will happen to that child" racism you see here.

thegreekdog wrote:Anyway, I think there should be a safety net, but like our founding documents say, it's the "pursuit of happiness" that we have a right to, not merely "happiness." The former phrase indicates some sort of action or activity on the part of the citizen and, unfortunately, our society (drug addicts and non-addicts alike) have become an instant gratification society where it's no longer the "pursuit" that is the key word.

Except that is the thing. This idea that most people on welfare (and that is the group of whom we speak, not others) are there because they are not just too lazy to get a job. I mean, they may wind up being lazy.... get turned down enough times or see everyone around you getting turned down and before long you loose hope of doing better.

On the other side, I see a lot of 20 somethings that grew up in the 80's and were highly "indulged", semi abandoned by families where both parents worked or who were divorced and maybe "paid off" with "goodies" and lax rules. Ironically, many of them are the new deadbeats... but you don't necessarily see them on the welfare roles yet, because mommy and daddy are picking up the tabs. (NOT talking about those who truly are going to school fulltime, working to the extent they can, helping around the house .. generally being adult even if not fully working for a living yet).