Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (5883)	5/20/2000 8:55:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

<<There is of course the issue of possible parasitism, and of reducing the incentive to succeed, which is addressed by making the benefits small and >by making the process of getting them so thoroughly humiliating that no functional person would want to rely on them.>> Exactly! This is exactly why a FEDERAL safety net is a problem. I remember clearly the discussion leading up to the "Great Society" and the big expansion of the federal safety net. Before then we relied on charity. One of the reasons given for expanding and federalizing these programs was that CHARITY was humiliating and the unsuccessful shouldn't be humiliated. It ruins their self esteem and makes them less likely to be successful. Instead, the idea was, they should receive what they need from the federal government as an ENTITLEMENT, which carries no shame. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, housing subsidies and food stamps. That's why I think it's not smart for safety-net programs to be federal. We would be better off with a combination of charity and local government programs. As callous as it sounds, there has to be some shame. Karen