Thank goodness the government of NY is not paying for this or I would have some issues.
I am all about believing that if poor people made better decisions some could get out of poverty. I am just not sure if this type of reward program is the way to make it happen. I guess I am interested in seeing if it works.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Vsry pragmatic idea, which makes me like it. Don't know if it'll work or not but I'll be happy if it does.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Bloomberg, a billionaire Republican, said he believes paying people in such circumstances to make good decisions could help break those patterns. The program "gives New Yorkers in poverty a financial incentive to look ahead and make decisions that will improve their prospects for the future," he said in a statement.
But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote the misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
I thought that line "misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices"was the funniest and saddest statement I have read in a while.
It really highlights the the differences between my beliefs and those who think government should make the choices for stupid people instead.
I guess gone are the days when Picadilly Circus would give free tokens to play video games if you did well on your report card.
Will this program be extended to those who aren't "poor"?
"It really highlights the the differences between my beliefs and those who think government should make the choices for stupid people instead."
I don't understand. If yo think that poor people could lead better lives if they made better choices, then aren't you saying that if we wanted them to live better lives, we should have someone else make their decisions for them? I mean, clearly you think that YOU know what the right choices are rather than the government, but aside from that, your position seems to be basically the same.
I hate to say it but Darwin has us on this one.
The libertarian principle of personal responsibility which guides policy to minimize state impact on individual’s lives is practically identical to the liberal principle of redistribution which guides policy to maximize the impact of the state on both perceived undeserving wealthy individuals and perceived deserving indigent folk. One group proposes a massive sate bureaucratic system to coercively rectify a perceived injustice to assuage the guilt of an upper middle class is just like the other groups support in reducing the state as much as possible to keep unfettered those who by their own choice excel, and in the process, unwittingly increase the standard of living for everyone around them.
One group uses the gun to attain its outcomes, while the other relies on self-motivation. They are the same indeed.
You believe that poor people are poor because they make bad decisions.
Liberals believe that poor people would be better off if the government made decisions for them.
The only difference I see there is that you don't think the government makes good decisions; the rest of the viewpoint seems identical.
Some people could get out of being poor if they made better decisions. Even if the government thinks they know what that decision is it should not be forced onto that person.
You would have to make a specific law for each poor person because a handful of laws is not going cover all the decisions these people make and there will obviously be repercussions with these laws.
These poor people know what those better decisions are they just choose to make them. They spend money on nice shoes instead of putting more money into a savings account. Or they get buy more cigarettes/alcohol, or drugs instead of groceries. It is not like some poor people go around going only if someone could tell me what is best for me because I have no idea I am making mistakes.
In the end it should be up to the people to change their own lives not the government. Nobody knows the choices poor people have to make better than poor people.
My position makes no assumptions about poor people. Your argument not only must makes assumptions about poor, it must also make assumptions about rich people. No doubt you have experts to back up your assumptions.
Other differences
1.You want to distinguish between groups. Rich vs Poor. Upper vs Lower.
2.You want to increase the state by creating an aparatus to remedey what you percieve as injustice. You call this redistribution.
3. You want to use coercion. In a fashion similar to relgion found throughout all of history, you want to use explicit power to force your beliefs on those that disagree with you. You call this social justice.
Am i missing something?
Post a Comment