Conservative (Libertarian) vs. Liberal Approaches to Poverty and Disability

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Because I have lived in two different states (Washington and Idaho) with opposite political philosophies (Washington: heavily liberal, Idaho: heavily libertarian) allow me to show you the difference the libertarian state makes to those with disabilities.

Washington
In Washington state, someone with a disability is treated like a criminal (in my experience) and harshly scorned and every thing they wish to do to improve themselves (like get housing, or some kind of help) is looked at as if they are trying to cheat the system. The wait times for housing can be up to 6 months or a year. The wait times for getting administrative work done can be up to two hours.

The net result: $700.00 in disability money, and Work Source (which is being shut down due to money failures).

Idaho
So, what does Idaho do? Well, it privatizes its disability service industry. What does that mean? Someone with a disability, if they are qualified, signs up for a center of their choice (there are different companies, of course, not just one) and that center offers free counseling, as well as free medicine prescriptions, and a free case worker as well as - and this is important - a P.S.R. worker who comes to your house 2 times a week for 2 hours, or more if needed, to work with you hands-on.

Idaho services involve rehabilitating the disabled. In addition to the state food stamps of around $170, Idaho gives an additional $60.00 from the state that can be withdrawn as cash.. And the disability payment is still around $700 a month.

So what are the benefits of privatizing the disability services? Endless. It must be something having to do with less government bureaucracy. The disabled are treated as people to be improved instead of untouchables to be given enough money to survive.

Some benefits I have seen include free graduate school opportunities, gas vouchers, clothing vouchers, and extreme hands-on help and rehabilitation, to name a few.

There is a difference between the Conservative approach to giving the poor tools and improving their lives and the liberal approach to scorning the poor and giving them hand-outs.

----------

Now, if this were 4 years ago, even 2 years ago, I would not have brought this up. But this is not. The Republican party in the prior decade seemed hell-bent on destroying the poor, which of course, Mitt Romney fully represented in all of his complete evil.

I think the new Republican party led by libertarian types is highly more likely to take the approach I mentioned above, which in my experience, is at least a thousand times more productive - not only that, it is also optional and not enforced, however the opportunities are there for someone who is willing to go for them.

For example. if someone wanted to just be handed their disability money and meet with their P.S.R. worker and make no progress for decades, they actually are completely free to. But there are some people who are poor or disabled who want to be treated like human beings and be given the chance to work to improve their situation, and that is where the conservative (specifically libertarian) approach comes in.
edit on 1-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
So you like the system where you get more hand-outs. Gotcha.

Same applies to the rest of the country, except not every privatized industry is efficient or regulated.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
So you like the system where you get more hand-outs. Gotcha.

Same applies to the rest of the country, except not every privatized industry is efficient or regulated.






So what are the handicapped and disabled supposed to do? it's called "civilization"...we help those that legitimately need help. I am not for paying some thug to sit on a couch all day and not work but when folks really need and deserve help, they should get it.

I assume you would have them euthanized and turned into soylent green...



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Really depends on what you view governments job is?

Is it there to take care of you no matter what,

Or is it there to allow you the tools to take care of yourself.

In both cases our government has failed the task, mismanaged funds, fraud, etc.

In an ideal world people would have a level of personal responsibility that included planing for infirmities, the government would provide companies the tools to offer said services to the public. Employer would receive tax breaks based on subsidizing the coverage for their workers.

In an ideal world...



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
So you like the system where you get more hand-outs. Gotcha.

Same applies to the rest of the country, except not every privatized industry is efficient or regulated.


There are multiple problems that arise from not caring about other people, most notably, putting yourself in danger of retaliation, and giving up your own ethical right to receive help when you need it.

The situation I mentioned allows opportunity for growth, that's not a hand-out, it is progress. It's just like the education system. The more educated the country is, the more successful the country is. Having a bad education system means we lag behind world-wide.

Having 4 / 5 people near poverty in our country means that we have an issue both with national stability and it means that - as an individual - not only are 4 /5 of us in danger of falling into poverty, if we somehow manage not to fall into poverty, we are in danger of being assaulted by angry mobs, or living in a 3rd world country.

Is a highway system a hand-out? What about a job? What about the education system? What about paying for working water?

I guess I should reply to your privatization statement, I do think that privatization is a risk, I was surprised at the difference, I thought it would be the other way around - I am much in support of small business rather than corporate interests myself, however. I think the disability services offered here in Idaho are pretty small companies with only a few stations each.
edit on 1-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


You would rather the disabled live on the streets?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Really depends on what you view governments job is?

Is it there to take care of you no matter what,

Or is it there to allow you the tools to take care of yourself.

In both cases our government has failed the task, mismanaged funds, fraud, etc.


Wow, I like how you broke this down!

It has to do one of the two things or else it isn't very stable.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Nicely presented that and I do agree. Another observation as someone living in Idaho, would be such as for electricity assistance, personal items, clothing to help be presentable for a job, gas money vouchers, etc. Instead of all the organizations just handing out money, some will offer the assistance funds in trade for volunteer work at their second hand store(non profit), very accommodating to those who are disabled too, but can offer a hand if at all possible. In that way it helps the community more especially when employment is hard to come by.
edit on 1-8-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5

log in

join