.eraflew
In case you couldn't read the first line it says "welfare" backwards. Alot of people think this is how dyslexic people write words, and I suppose some do. Personally, I'm lucky if I can even remember what letters are in welfare, forwards or backwards. Back in 1990 I was diagnosed as being stupid. If you dislike me you're probably saying "well that figures," and you aren't exactly wrong. In time they diagnosed me with the dreaded disorder Dyslexia (along with ADHD and some other disorders who I didn't pay enough attention to to remember). Personally I think those are just more sophisticated ways of calling me stupid. Yes, dyslexia is a neurological disorder, and yes I didn't do anything to deserve it (neither did my parents, actually there is a long history of dyslexia in my mother's family). However, my having dyslexia doesn't prevent me from acting like a moron from time to time.
A couple of weeks ago my misspellings came up in conversation, and I admitted to my dyslexia (a fact I am not ashamed of) and was admonished for it. Rightfully so I might add. While I had accepted my disability as a fact of life I had forgotten that like all disabilities I have to compensate for it. Instead of being the problem it was in my life, I had made it into the crutch I wanted it to be. Thankfully I was reminded of my mistakes and my transgression was caught before too late.
Now most of you will read these last two paragraphs and think they are an attack on Panther (actually they were written a while ago and had been sitting around in my drafts section), but they're not. In fact, they aren't about me or dyslexia in general. Instead, they are about welfare. Welfare, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is money given by the government to the less fortunate in society. Obviously this redistribution of wealth by the government is socialistic in nature. In fact, the main problem people have with welfare is the same problem I had with my dyslexia. They believe that welfare is a crutch which the less fortunate come to depend on and thus never rise to a point in their lives where they can be free of it.
In March of '03 there were 4,986,914 people on welfare, 4,955,479 in June of the same year. This represents a -.6% shift from the previous year (ie. no shift). The yearly totals from month to month for the year of '02 only change by a margin of 406,193 during the course of the year (less than 10%). It seems fairly obvious to the quick thinker that this means people on welfare tend to stay on welfare. It becomes a crutch to them, and what they really should do is buckle down and get a job. After all, its my tax dollars supporting them.
What the mathematicians say isn't true. Numbers lie, and quick thinkers aren't always the smartest thinkers. It might come as a surprise to anyone reading those last two paragraphs that in a ten year period less than 2% of people on welfare were on welfare were on it again in that ten year period. This means 98% of people on welfare are only on it for a year at most. Not much of a crutch is it now? In fact, the more you scrutinize the welfare system the more you realize that very few people are reliant on it. These people are out there looking for jobs and are unable to either find them or find ones that support them and their families. The welfare system instead begins to look more and more like a net if one is falling.
This brings us back to my dyslexia (full circle if you will). About 90 some odd percent of the time I correct my dyslexia, and find my mistakes, and so when a few slip through people should take that into account. However, that doesn't make my bringing it up any less self indulgent. Instead, it is like Godwin's law, effective unless mentioned.
taken from: Statistics, the Book of Lies by Jim Tzenes
In case you couldn't read the first line it says "welfare" backwards. Alot of people think this is how dyslexic people write words, and I suppose some do. Personally, I'm lucky if I can even remember what letters are in welfare, forwards or backwards. Back in 1990 I was diagnosed as being stupid. If you dislike me you're probably saying "well that figures," and you aren't exactly wrong. In time they diagnosed me with the dreaded disorder Dyslexia (along with ADHD and some other disorders who I didn't pay enough attention to to remember). Personally I think those are just more sophisticated ways of calling me stupid. Yes, dyslexia is a neurological disorder, and yes I didn't do anything to deserve it (neither did my parents, actually there is a long history of dyslexia in my mother's family). However, my having dyslexia doesn't prevent me from acting like a moron from time to time.
A couple of weeks ago my misspellings came up in conversation, and I admitted to my dyslexia (a fact I am not ashamed of) and was admonished for it. Rightfully so I might add. While I had accepted my disability as a fact of life I had forgotten that like all disabilities I have to compensate for it. Instead of being the problem it was in my life, I had made it into the crutch I wanted it to be. Thankfully I was reminded of my mistakes and my transgression was caught before too late.
Now most of you will read these last two paragraphs and think they are an attack on Panther (actually they were written a while ago and had been sitting around in my drafts section), but they're not. In fact, they aren't about me or dyslexia in general. Instead, they are about welfare. Welfare, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is money given by the government to the less fortunate in society. Obviously this redistribution of wealth by the government is socialistic in nature. In fact, the main problem people have with welfare is the same problem I had with my dyslexia. They believe that welfare is a crutch which the less fortunate come to depend on and thus never rise to a point in their lives where they can be free of it.
In March of '03 there were 4,986,914 people on welfare, 4,955,479 in June of the same year. This represents a -.6% shift from the previous year (ie. no shift). The yearly totals from month to month for the year of '02 only change by a margin of 406,193 during the course of the year (less than 10%). It seems fairly obvious to the quick thinker that this means people on welfare tend to stay on welfare. It becomes a crutch to them, and what they really should do is buckle down and get a job. After all, its my tax dollars supporting them.
What the mathematicians say isn't true. Numbers lie, and quick thinkers aren't always the smartest thinkers. It might come as a surprise to anyone reading those last two paragraphs that in a ten year period less than 2% of people on welfare were on welfare were on it again in that ten year period. This means 98% of people on welfare are only on it for a year at most. Not much of a crutch is it now? In fact, the more you scrutinize the welfare system the more you realize that very few people are reliant on it. These people are out there looking for jobs and are unable to either find them or find ones that support them and their families. The welfare system instead begins to look more and more like a net if one is falling.
This brings us back to my dyslexia (full circle if you will). About 90 some odd percent of the time I correct my dyslexia, and find my mistakes, and so when a few slip through people should take that into account. However, that doesn't make my bringing it up any less self indulgent. Instead, it is like Godwin's law, effective unless mentioned.
taken from: Statistics, the Book of Lies by Jim Tzenes
posted by jim at 8/26/2005 11:41:00 PM
6 Comments:
Part of the reason that people don't stay on welfare for long periods of time is because the system of welfare doesn't allow for many people to simply remain on welfare, so in the end, it is what it is what it was designed to be, a crutch.
Now, I say that it is a crutch and it is. You use a crutch when you can't stand on your own and you need a bit of extra support. We don't keep crutches around after for ever, so the analogy is valid. It should be noted that there is no shame in using a crutch when one cannot stand. Of course, the goal is to be able to stand again and so welfare is indeed a great crutch.
I've heard a lot of arguments against welfare; it seems a good deal of people (claim they) don't want it for themselves and don't want to give it to other people. They think private charity is fine, but that charity forced on people by the state is not.
Beside the possibility of deterring crime (after all, I imagine a good many people would rather steal than starve to death), I haven't seen much justification for the existence of welfare. Maybe its existence isn't justified; maybe people ought to save money when they have it so they're more prepared, or rely on loans, family, etc. Have you found solid reasons for welfare?
The welfare system does not prevent people from going on welfare twice it a ten or even four year period. In fact, the system does allow them to simply remain on welfare for years at a time. The opinion that people abuse the system on a regular basis just isn't true.
This post wasn't here to justify the welfare system by any means, but rather an attack on the preconception that it is a system that is being abused (hence the whole pre-story about dyslexia). It simply isn't true. People on welfare stay on it for far less time than they could, and rarely return to it.
As for justification for it in the first place, well you'll just have to wait around and see if I bring it up again, won't you.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I thought you covered your ground well enough, so I was merely trying to extend the discussion a bit. If you don't want to talk about it here though, that's cool.
Good post, I have nothing more to add at this point, but thought that you should know since many think we have drama surrounding our online relationship, which I think is just hype, I enjoy your weblog.
At one point in time, I truly believed that welfare was a destructive element in society.
I still believe it a lesser crutch than starving someone (or letting them starve, whatever suits your fancy).
Actually, I'm more against private charity than I am welfare. Those reasons are too numerous to post here, but, in general, I find private charities more enabling towards a future of dependence than welfare.
Welfare, folks, is just plain unexciting to be on. Pride, as it turns out, is both a bitter enemy and a powerful healer all at the same time. While pride can prevent us from getting help, it also seems to make us get off our asses and take care of ourselves.
Debt is a crutch that just plain hurts to lean on. EVERYONE pays for welfare, only the priviledged pay for charity. Which comes with a healthier social pressure to come back into the fold?
Post a Comment
<< Home