Entitlement Blues

[anigo]

Ok, so is it just me, or is anybody else getting tired of all the whining in the world today. (Oh wait now, I'm a whiner, aren't I. Ok, let me rephrase that) Is it just me or is anybody else getting tired of all the whining about entitlement?

On my way to work this morning I heard a news article that said that the power company was going to raise its rates for the third time in three years. OUTRAGE! Apparently one of the rights in the declaration of rights is that everybody in the world is entitled to a reasonably priced access to electricity. WOW! Now, I've just looked it up and it does say this:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

And this too makes me think WOW.

Yanno what? My first thought is that this is a stupid rule. My second thought is that maybe it's not a stupid rule, maybe my interpretation of it is stupid. You have a right to a reasonable standard of living. You have a right to it. You are not ENTITLED TO IT. Or are you. I guess... I guess that it annoys me to no end when people whine because electricity is so darn expensive. Yes, I know it's expensive. So stop whining and do something about it. Turn off the lights. Get a job. Yes, ok, I know there are people out there who aren't capable, but I'm sure that there'd be a whole lot less people who wouldn't be capable if we didn't enable them to be incapable.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "Down with social safety nets", I'm saying that things like... I heard another thing on my way to work this morning. It was for a concert or something. They were giving the prices. $10 for general admission, $5 for students and (get this) the "wage impaired". PULEEEEASE! What in god's name inspires you to work if the rest of the world is going to accommodate you because you're "wage impaired"

Another thing that I'd heard was that there were some military men who had been injured in Afghanistan and were being medivac-ed out to a nice safe hospital somewhere. In doing so, however, they wouldn't be entitled to receive danger pay anymore - since they weren't in an area that was dangerous. They were protesting this $2000/mo TAX FREE cut in pay. Um... hmm... Guess what. YOU'RE NOT IN DANGER ANYMORE, WHY WOULD YOU POSSIBLY GET DANGER PAY? I could see getting compensated for being injured, but.. C'mon people.

Again, I don't want anybody to get me wrong. There are people on my friends list who are in situations that require social assistance of some sort or another. These friends are people who I KNOW would much rather be working. Who have gone that extra mile to make sure that they can stay away from being as wage impaired as possible.

Social safety nets are good. But when does a social safety net become a tool for enabling the lazy whiners of the world?

Discuss. And don't curse at me. It's bad manners.

Comments

[rth-n-water.livejournal.com]

I think there is a point at which a person/gov't behaviour becomes too enabling. There is helping people and then there is allowing people too much opportunity to take advantage of the situation. There is also an adverse effect on those who do well. Why should you put yourself out there and bust your butt if you don't get any breaks for it. You get taxed more, asked to pay more for things and are expected to be okay with it. Blah! I don't think so. But that's just my 2 cents.

[weedblossom.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. Oh, I have so many ideas about this! I have an acquaintance who worked a total of two months last year, but because she's got two children she got back almost $6000 from her tax refund! (And she gets child support, so she's not raising two children without any additional financial help.) At the moment she's not working at all and hasn't for about a year and a half, she has a roommate with two kids (six people stuffed into a three bedroom trailer) who pays all the bills. And yet she gets Medicaid and Food Stamps - why? To feed her narcotics addiction, of course. It makes me sick.

It's all backwards. When I lost my job I went to file for unemployment and was told that I would get a whopping $138 a month. I was thankful because that's better than nothing, but it was still a crock in light of what I knew about my acquaintance (who got almost $300 a week - but in a way, I don't grudge her that 'cause she's got kids).

Anyway, I don't think I argued to your entitlement bit but toward a societal bent. This woman expects the government to hand her everything when she's a piece of shit and doesn't do ANYTHING. If it wasn't for the fact that her sister lives right next door, I shudder to think what would happen to her kids.

[the-paulr.livejournal.com]

Why would I curse at you? You're saying what I'm thinking. You go, girl!

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

The downside of being taken care of is that you lose every ounce of freedom you have. This is what the entitlement junkies fail to understand.

If you go on welfare, for just an example, then you are bound by the RULES of the Social Services Department. If you go on food stamps, you have to buy the food with them that THEY think is good for you. If you live in subsidized housing, you have to provide the PTB with personal information that PROVES you qualify for it--thus handing over any right to privacy regarding your finances that you ever dreamed of having.

You pay for your "right" to be taken care of by having to toe their bureaucratic line. You pay for your comfort with your personal liberty.

I lived that way, when I was married the first time, and it sucked dry toads through bendy straws. We had enough to live on, but I was answerable to EVERYONE. I was required to relinquish every ounce of privacy I had, and I spent my life trying to make sure that I wasn't breaking any of their "rules".

I sold myself to social services.

If people want to be taken care of, than that's their decision--but there's ALWAYS a price, and to think that there isn't is a fantasy. And in the case of social programs, very often what you pay is a far higher price than anything you can imagine before you walk into the system.

Not me.

I'll break my ass and earn my own money and spend it as I please and live where I please, how I please, and not be answerable to ANYONE.

And I would NEVER trade my liberty for a dollar ever again.

[giorgio.livejournal.com]

As an unemployed eccentric millionaire, I have a right to public assistance to buy the basics, such as fine wines, imported cheese and Russian caviar. These necessities are essential to my health and well-being.







Okay, I was just kidding. I hate caviar.

[kyra-ojosverdes.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you've said... but when there's no food in the cupboard, the kids are hungry, and you've been out of work for months, there's not a whole lot in the way of alternatives. :-\

The price is horrible. In many cases the price actively prevents you from moving off the system. (Mandatory meetings with your caseworker every week or every month, during work hours? What a shock when you're canned for absenteeism.)

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

Another insidious tactic of the system--once you're there, I don't think they really want you to move. Your misfortune is their job security.

If I had it to do all over again, I never would have allowed myself to get into it. I never would have allowed myself to be convinced that it was the way that we had to go, because it really wasn't. What that man did was his business, and my stupidity was that he convinced me that, as his wife, it was my job to go there with him.

Of course, the stupidity was hooking up with that man to begin with! ;-) But the fact is that I spent the entire decade of my 20's selling myself to one person, one entity, one lifestyle or another, when I was perfectly capable of making my life different for myself. And when I go back there, and face the single biggest flaw in myself that kept me from living the way I should have--the way I DESERVED to--was my inner, secret desire to be taken care of.

That's what my first husband promised. That's what Social Services promised. And maybe those promises, in their twisted ways, were kept--but the price I paid for the fulfillment of those promises was a horror. And people need to be aware of that side-effect of financial dependence, whether it be reliance on another person or on a government entity, BEFORE they get into it.

The only thing that worked for me was to lose the idea that it was anyone's job to take care of me except me. And I really hated giving up that idea.

But when you place your security in the hands of another human being, you're putting not only that security but also your own autonomy in jeopardy. And if that's OK with a person, then that's fine--but it isn't OK with me anymore.

[anigo.livejournal.com]

You were one of the people I was worried about offending when it came right down to it. And you, of all people, are right up there in my books as poster child for the "Goddammit I don't want to be wage impared and i'm going to work like a sonovabitch to make sure I can get as far away from being wage impared as possible"

I think if all of the "wage impared" people of the world - hell even the wage unimpared - had your kind of work ethic... well... Yeah.

[kyra-ojosverdes.livejournal.com]

I've given a great deal of thought as to how to balance the genuine needs of those who are trying but keep getting hit by one thing after another (generally long-term consequences of one or more bad choices made when they were too young/stupid/stubborn/whatever to know better... like having a child with the wrong man, but sometimes simple things like disability) against the "cheats" who exist in any and every system. There are people who spend a lot more time analyzing percentages and losses, and it turns out that the cheats are a very small proportion.

I'm on the side of providing those services to all who need them, and giving careful thought to how the "system" can/should reward and encourage hard work, initiative, and self-sufficiency. (Hint: it doesn't look like "Okay, in the past five months I've managed to increase my earnings by $5.5k/year, but the net effect after losing various subsidies and state services is that I've got $6k/year less after health insurance, rent, and student loan payments.")

I really do think that every person has a right to food, water, basic medical care (not talking cosmetic surgery, but if my cancer comes back I'd sure like to get it treated), and decent living conditions. When working at WORD I saw hundreds of people who were working their asses off, dropping with exhaustion from working two full-time jobs while raising kids, and not making it. Two-parent families with both parents employed who ended up homeless because they couldn't pay rent.

So no, I'm not offended by your post. I do, however, disagree with it. :-)

[anigo.livejournal.com]

First. Let me say this. To have somebody disagree with a post without being offended or feeling the need to take personal shots... well, You've made my day. Literally. Please feel free to disagree with me whenever you'd like :)

Second. I think we might be closer to the same side of agreeing... Because I do agree with what you've said. I do agree that every person has a right to water, medical care, etc. Life, liberty and happiness etc. I guess i just find that every once in a while I get overwhelmed with the "system" needing to take care of all who are under it, and in doing so... Taxes go up... There are times when it seems that the leveling of the playing field is only dropping the level all the way around... Agh, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining. How about...

Um...

Nice shoes?

[kyra-ojosverdes.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that the entire playing field isn't being taken into account when the leveling occurs... those at the highest levels of wealth can afford to buy their way (tax loopholes, etc) out of the leveling. That means the middle class takes it in the shorts. Which is really not good at all.

Another part of the problem is our perception of where tax money goes. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the US a very small percentage, as in single digits, of the nation's budget goes to social services. But what do they cut whenever they need more money for building pork-barrel projects or bombs? Social services. Why? Because poor people are too busy trying to feed their children, get medical care, and keep their jobs to fight back. Poor people don't contribute to political campaigns. They're an easy target with precious few advocates.

[kyra-ojosverdes.livejournal.com]

As for disagreeing without being an asshole about it... I try. ;-)