Panda Doesn’t Understand Me or Social Justice
Panda Bear is great writer. A great, deceptive writer, but aren’t we writers always trying to use our words to influence and convince, anyway?
Panda Bear uses great analogy and examples (usually stereotyped) to make his point. The fallacy is perhaps not his fault–we often see the best and the worst of and in people in the Emergency Department, which may explain his selection bias. Here’s the fundamental difference between us, Panda Bear, with clichés in full force: you seem to believe that one bad apple spoils the barrel, whereas I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But that’s the problem with Social Justice, especially as it is used to justify giving everyone free health care. It makes the assumption that everyone is a victim and doesn’t allow for the possibility of the freeloader who not only exists in droves but is aggressively selected for in every nanny-state ever created. People may be lazy but they aren’t stupid and, as most people do not love their jobs, if the conditions are set to obviate the need for work many people will tend to do as little work as they possibly can.
Social justice, as I understand, it about equality. Distributing shared, scarce public resources as equitably as possible. Nothing in it speaks of victimhood. The poor (because that’s who I think we’re really talking about here) are certainly in a terrible position, and some might think of them as victims, but I wouldn’t blanket the term on like that.
Look, our society is based on equality, equal opportunity, and justice for all. While I’m certainly not idealistic naive enough to believe that this will ever be attained, I fundamentally believe it’s something we should strive for. Will there be free-loaders? Always! It’s our unfortunate human nature. I agree that “many people will tend to do as little work as they possibly can.” But I believe that for the most part, the poor and working poor do the best they can based on their circumstances. These people are not the ones that freeload in the ED. You may never see them (until their appendix bursts). Because they’re doing whatever they can to make ends meet. I believe that these people–the large majority, in my mind–should not be punished because of the inevitable freeloaders that happen to be grouped in the same income bracket. We should do our best to create policies that discourage freeloading, but not at the cost of hurting those who already have the least. (And ahem, health care is certainly not free. I know what you mean, but if liberal wackos are going to get rightly called to task for the term, I’m an equal-opportunity call-to-tasker.)
Later in Panda’s piece he sets up the anonymous straw-man “the usual suspects” who are apparently “deeply conflicted.” I’m not sure who the usual suspects are, unless they’re tree-hugging, Communist free-spirited liberals from San Francisco. (Note: Having been in the Bay Area for 5 years, one of the tree-hugging strongholds in the US, I have yet to find a serious-about-policy, educated, truly informed “usual suspect” as Panda describes. Please report them to both Panda and I immediately.)
As if we don’t have enough trouble administering real justice we now have to gear up to dispense social justice, a highly nebulous concept the implementation of which requires that grievance, race, age, social status, intelligence, and other things that Americans should ignore be worked into an arbitrary and impossible behavioral calculus to give to each according to his need and to take from each according to his abilty.
Equality, Panda, is the word you’re looking for. Highly nebulous concept that it is, I’m all for it.
I certainly by any stretch of the imagination do not believe that highly-over-educated, job-pretty-darn-secure, world-is-my-oyster physicians (including myself) can understand what it’s like to poor in today’s society. Crappy education, dangerous neighborhoods, the convenience store and fast food for your dinner options. The medblogosphere’s tune would certainly be different if most people’s parents were poor and working poor.
you make many references to panda bear’s blog, but i know very little about him–where is he from, where was he trained?
i ask because–well, i go to a school in a rough part of a big east coast city. there are many people in my class that are from middle-of-nowhere, rural part of the state. they come to our school with those ideas that panda bear has detailed above. then when they rotate through the hospital, they actually work with the people they had previously characterized as “freeloaders” and people who “tend to do as little work as they possibly can”. working with people addicted to various substances, who are non-compliant with medications is certainly no picnic. however, it’s a little difficult to just dismiss them as “freeloaders” when you learn a little more about their lives–the state of the schools in the area, the disturbingly high incidence of sexual abuse in these people’s lives. i could go on, but this comment is long enough. the disturbing cycle of poverty is much more complicated and real when you work within it.
Whoa there Graham. Obvioulsy you have guilt issues with your upbringing which you should not project to others. As for the world-being-my-oyster, speak for yourself. I happen to have had nothing handed to me on a silver platter except that I had good parents who instilled a good work ethic in all of their children, something that does not depend on wealth (the converse actually being true in this case more often than not). I understand perfectly well what it means to be poor which is why I have devoted my life to avoiding this condition, taking advantage of the opportunity in this country that exists for everyone if they but make an effort and understand both the need to delay gratification and the possibility of failure.
The problem of the poor, in my experience, is their unability to plan ahead, to anticipate or even imagine the possibility that there could be more to life, in other words, that sometimes the road to prosperity and independence does lead through a crappy minimum wage job at Burger King (done it) or back-breaking labor as a landscaper (done it too). Given this inability to visualize the future, a life on disability, the holy grail to the many of your Holy Underserved, seems preferable to work and easier than expending the effort for self-improvement.
As for your views on social justice, you’re just throwing your poorly defined morality around as if it were immutable natural law and not a belief system that does not really stand up to objective scrutiny. It’s not even internally consistant. You have this wonderful set of ethical principles but, as I point out in my blog, no mechanism to separate the sinner from the saved, the deserving from the villain, and the poor schlub who just needs a hand from the freeloader. You cover everyone with the blanket of equality when common sense tells you that you would never treat people like this on a personal level.
If you get mugged, for example, will you later call your attacker on your cell-phone which he stole to make sure he doing okay and ask if he would like the PIN number to your bank card? Of course not.
As to justice, like I said, we have enough trouble judging the guilty who have comited real crimes without structuring society to redress every consequence of inequality. The only sustainable way to ensure a prosperous society full of opportunity for everyone, opportunity that they have the perfect freedom to reject but also the freedom to starve, is to structure every law, tax policy, and social program to discourage freeloading and encourage personal initiative, responsibilty, and self-reliance.
Which means to minimize, as much as possible, every social program, tax policy, and law. Why the converse, to make everyone a chattel slave of the nanny-stateis considered progress is beyond me.
The problem of the poor, in my experience, is their unability to plan ahead, to anticipate or even imagine the possibility that there could be more to life
that’s kind of hard to do if your parents are teenagers or if they’re addicted to alcohol or other drugs…and so the cycle of poverty continues. personally, i’m not sure how i would have turned out if i didn’t have a nurturing environment. yes, some people make it out despite horrible circumstances, but those are exceptional individuals. and that doesn’t mean that people who aren’t able to thrive under horrible conditions are less deserving of basic human rights.
social justice recognizes we don’t all come from the same place, i.e. this country’s history of slavery and mass genocide.
your comment about the mugger is irrelevant to the concept of social justice.
Your comment about slavery and mass genocide tell me everything I need to know.
Come on.
No guilt issues here. My psychiatrist father would have addressed them already.
I just truly appreciate what my parents have given me (opportunity, education, hard work ethic) and believe everyone should have access to it.
As for the world-being-my-oyster, speak for yourself.
You are a physician. You surely must recognize how many doors are automatically open for you compared to the other 99% of the country.
The problem of the poor, in my experience, is their unability to plan ahead, to anticipate or even imagine the possibility that there could be more to life
Certainly one of many problems the poor face, but certainly not the only one.
You’re right, I don’t have a great way of separating the “sinner from the saved.” Do you? I’d rather help the saved at the cost of also helping the sinner.
I’d rather do less for people and expect them to do more for themselves regardless of their moral worth or abilities. Cradle-to-grave socialism, the inevitable destination of any free people who can vote themselves other people’s money, is not a sustainable strategy. That is all. If you think that our European cousins are not having preoblems funding thier lavish social programs you don’t read much. Also, if your goal in life is to ensure that people have economic opportunity and upward mobility (not equality which is impossible) it is better to have some “tough love” and leave people, as much as possible to their own devices.
Now, as our current welfare state has created a huge dependency class who are fit for almost no productive activity, the challenges here are daunting. But it would be better to gradually wean society from the expectation that others must care for them than to throw in the towel and make us all wards of the state.
I advocate “benign neglect” where government concerns itself with pro-growth tax and fiscal policy as well as the traditional functions of government (building roads, fighting wars, etc.) but minimizes its role everywhere else. Ain’t gonna’ happen but that would be ideal.
“come on”…you use that phrase a lot in this blog’s comments. with it, you don’t address any of the points i brought up and it doesn’t contribute to the dialogue.
I had good parents who instilled a good work ethic in all of their children
i made the points about this country’s history because they contributed to the structural injustices in this world. in your worldview, it’s clear that you ignore these things. work ethic, a sense of social responsibility–those qualities need to be taught like many other things in our society. you act as if everyone has the same access to opportunities you do. they don’t. and just because opportunities exist does not make them equally accessible to everyone.
And Graham, I opened the doors myself although some would say kicked them open and tossed in a grenade. Going to medical school and getting a residency has been an exercise in delayed gratification, hard work, and making difficult choices the fruits of which are not immedietely apparent.
Oh, I get it. My seventeen-year-old polybabydadic mother of three is having babies and smoking crack because her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was kidnapped by a Muslim slave trader, sold to an African slave wholesaler, held in a baracoon by the Portugese, and then sold to a planter in Virginia.
Come on.
You know, in my own lifetime the illegtimacy rate among blacks (hell among every race) has skyrocketed and the literacy rates were decreased. Even at a time many years ago when racism was at its worse the black community, on average, had stronger families and more education. What happened? Why the regression? Has our society become more racsist? Of course not. Your Holy Victims were created and sustained by the very programs set up to help them.
There’s some degree of irony in that Panda misspells “inability” when talking about the poor and uneducated.
It’s a good point though. It’s hard to plan ahead when you’re stuck in a dead end job and the feeling is that you can’t do any better. As a matter of fact, you’d think it’d be the responsible thing for a government to help them plan ahead and account for things like health insurance, wouldn’t you? That’d give them one less (BIG) thing to worry about, IMO.
Panda errs on the side of “justice” as delivered by judgment of so-called freeloaders. However, his judgment seems more like stereotyping than distributive justice to me.
Graham errs on the side of “equality,” hoping that the numbers balance themselves out (more immigrants work hard in low paying jobs to support family back home than freeload and take advantage of social welfare.) However, when you have a lopsided system to begin with (you can’t tax rich and poor people equally,) obviously rich people are going to complain and ask “how does this help me?”
Really, it sounds to me like rich people are more greedy than they ought to be. The point of a society is to support each other. If you disagree, you’re out of touch with your fellow citizens. If you think that your retired grandparents are undeserving in spite of the fact that they worked hard to make this country what it is today… and you think that the impoverished are going to steal all of your tax dollars to no benefit, then you’re not looking ahead — its the future generations where we will see vast improvements (sadly, policy change doesn’t demonstrate results in Q4-8 years.) Am I mistaken? Perhaps. I just thought that America was founded by the rejects of other countries seeking opportunity, that’s all.
Who am I do deny them the opportunity?
My seventeen-year-old polybabydadic mother of three is having babies and smoking crack because…
no. it’s b/c her mother was also a crack smoking teenage mother with multiple children from different fathers. it’s a cycle that started from the systemic oppression of people…why do you think the distribution of wealth is the way it is now? and where is this cycle of poverty and disenchantment supposed to end if we take a completely laissez-faire approach as you’re proposing?
you imply you’ve grown up poor–but you have something that many people don’t, good parents.
can you give a specific example of this “huge dependency class” you speak of–a person you know and have worked with? i’ve worked with people who are dependent on social services, but they also happen to have major psychiatric pathology, often exacerbated by/caused by disturbing childhoods marked by sexual abuse or neglect. i remember one of the docs i worked with remarked, “if i had to deal with what these people have to deal with everyday, i’d probably be in the ER everyday too.”
Dude, I assure you that thirty years ago there were far, far fewer black seventeen-year-old polybabydadic mothers of three smoking crack or whatever was the drug du jour back then. At that time, just coming out of the sixties, racial tensions were higher, blacks were significantly less likely to attend college, have good jobs, or hold public office, and the big bad Ku Klux Klan still had some influence.
If your theories were correct the trend would be opposite to this.
I think even Graham will vouch for the existence of a dependency class, that is, a large group of people who rely on the government for all of their basic needs (housing, food, etc.) If you think everybody who is a client of social services has psychiatric problems that force them to it…well…you live on some strange planet I have never heard of.
I grew up in a very wealthy neighborhood, and I saw plenty of wealthy freeloaders. I don’t think it is just a quality reserved for poor people. Having inheritance also sets up for freeloaders, but I don’t see anyone clamoring to get rid of it.
Oh, and I have two children from two different fathers, which I suppose would make me “polybabydadic”, and I am getting my dual degree currently – med school and a master’s of public health. So, watch what you characterize as a social ill.
thirty years ago…i guess around the time of the civil rights movement? i’d argue that business ventures gone sour and dreams gone unfulfilled despite the promises of desegregation have turned people to alcohol at that time…and that’s where the cycle begins. yeah racism was de-institutionalized, but that doesn’t mean that it disappeared from the structure of society. since then, things have gotten worse in some ways, better in other ways.
well…you live on some strange planet I have never heard of.
you have a tendency to dismiss other people’s experiences. not surprising given your dismissal of slavery. “the big bad Ku Klux Klan”? don’t you think it’s a bit easy for you to make such comments? just because racism doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean it’s non-existent. no, black people aren’t being told to sit in the back of the bus anymore; it’s more insidious now and that doesn’t make it any less harmful or less real. no, i don’t think it’s the only factor causing society’s ills, but i think people become resigned to a certain place in society partly because of these structural things.
i disagree with your view that social programs have created a dependent class. people turn to drug dealing, stealing cars, etc precisely because they want more than that. why don’t they go to school and get a regular job like the rest of us? again, because they’re resigned to a certain place in society.
And Graham, I am not a decepetive writer. I make an observation that the poor are neither all freeloaders nor all saints, something with which even you agree, and then offer my opinion as to what it all means and why Social Justice is such a ridiculous thing upon which to build pubilc policy. While you may not believe or endorse it, nothing I write, even my opinions, are too much of a stretch or strain credibility. Recognizing that freeloaders proliferate in socialized countries, people that the Russians jokingly called “Homo Sovieticus” to describe the malingering time-server making shoddy products or pushing worthless paperwork around in the now deceased glorious worker’s paradise, is not something that you can deny without straining your own credibility.
The question then becomes, what right does a freeloader, someone who knows he will be provided for and decides to opt out of the productive world, have to the public money (your money)? I say none, but that’s jsut my opinion and one that is shared by many, many, perhaps the majority of your fellow citizens including many medical students and physicians. Are we all deceiving ourselves?
But I love your blog which is why I link it from mine. I think you’re sort of a pioneer of the medical student/resident blog genre.
[...] There is a significant ongoing blogger discussion about health care reform, particularly the battle between those physicians who want patients to take responsibility more of their health care (and the costs) and physicians who want universal health care system to cover everyone. Over at the Happy Hospitalist, he pounds home the message that Free=More. PandaBearMD lays out the Free Loader worries. Meanwhile, Grahamazon responds about Social Justice. [...]
Panda Bear, you’re a gifted and talented writer, but your unspoken thesis is becoming apparent. Here’s how I see it: You’ve worked hard to be a doctor. It’s a frustrating, challenging (yet rewarding) field, and you want to be materially rewarded the way others who have not chosen to “delay their gratification” have been. You look with contempt and disdain on others who lack your skills or talents (or education) and think that they should be able to overcome their deficits and succeed. (This is America, after all!) Your emphasis on the “freeloader problem” displays your arrogance and prejudice, as you seem to categorically assume that the poor and disenfranchised will continue to have babies out of wedlock, deal crack cocaine, and generally abuse the resources that we as a society can provide. But I think your main problem with this “social justice” approach is not so much that people will abuse the system, but you’re just greedy and don’t want to see your money go to serve these people.
If you ever run for public office, heaven help your constituents. Stick to writing. Or better yet, retainer medicine. You can make all the money you want there.
But you see, you have it exactly backwards, cynical as I am I have faith that most people can take care of themselves and will make good choices if they had to. Your attitude, however, while overtly compassionate is disgustingly paternalistic and views the poor as nothing more than robotic victims who need the smothering hand of their better-educated masters to keep them safe.
I repeat, a system of government which seeks to support everyone at the expense of the public is unsustainable and does not, as can be seen by the condition of the dependency class, lead to happy, prosperous citizens. And I repeat again that the fundamental political problem of all of the nanny-states including ours is their inability to pay for the benefits that their citizens have come to expect as a right. The wealth of nations does not form from thin air and as this wealth, the surplus of goods and services, is required to support a dependent and non-productive population, implementing cradle-to-grave benefits for everyone at the levels required to win elections is a little like killing the golden-egg laying goose. A short-term bonaza to the dependent but a long-term catastrophe for everyone.
[...] Graham and Panda Bear debate social justice. Seems fairly representative of popular opinion and left/right divide: a tradeoff between tolerance of freeloaders and acceptance of the fact that some hard-working but disadvantaged folk will be left behind. How many people’s opinion on this matter are informed by anecdote (or, how many people remember anecdotes based on their opinion), I wonder? [...]
Medipol writes it well: “Human rights dictate that all humans are equal. Yes, some people make poor decisions because of lack of education, bad environments and, well, generally being bad people. But as a physician, I don’t take a moral inventory when I assess my patients. I treat all patients who need my skills based on their medical needs, not their social or financial “value”.”
Panda Bear: First you write “…most people can take care of themselves and will make good choices if they had to…”, and later in the same comment you refer to these same individuals as “…a dependent and non-productive population…, or as (in a previous post) “…a huge dependency class who are fit for almost no productive activity”.
It appears that your characterization of the underserved varies according to its usefulness in defending your thesis. When you argue in favor of eliminating social programs, you describe people as capable and self-motivated, but you also assume that the slightest offer of help makes them (or maybe just the poor, I can’t tell from your arguments) “non-productive.”
Furthermore, in your first comment you described “the poor” as having an “… [i]nability to plan ahead, to anticipate or even imagine the possibility that there could be more to life…” So when we cease to provide health care to “the poor,” they’re miraculously going to muster up the resources to go buy their own, apply for college, and look for a better job?
Your stereotyping and patronization are abrasive.
it’s not “disgustingly paternalistic” to take history into account in the way we treat people.
your “benign neglect” idea is exactly what you called it–an ideal. an ideal that could work in a world where everyone comes from the same sort of background, has the same access to education/resources, has the same support system. but that’s not reality. not everyone has the same access to opportunity. that’s a crucial point you systemically ignore.
you argue that social programs are unsustainable…yeah, maybe if the system is really inefficient, if the people at the top are corrupt and taking a bit too much for themselves. but if we’re talking about a nationalized health plan, i think there is hope, esp if physicians and other health care professionals have a significant say in how it’s developed.
Har. Just when I was tempted to take you a little seriously. Dude, the people at the top are always corrupt. That’s the one immutable law of the universe. Corruption The only way attenuate this is to limit the scope and power of government, something our founding fathers understood but which we seem to have forgotten.
People become corrupted when they’re able to get away without being held accountable for their actions. That’s why government corruption is so prevalent in developing countries. Attenuating the scope of the government won’t curb corruption, but it will allow the exploitation of people who are already disenfranchised.
[...] MD links to a lively debate between Graham and Panda, now joined by California Medicine Man and Medskool, about the merits and meaning of [...]
Har har. Oh man. “Health care professionals have a siginificant say.” Haw haw. That’s rich. Dude. As conservative as I am and as generally in support of our political institutions, lawyers (not working, down-in-the-trenches physicians like me and thee), who are working for special interests make public policy and deeply influence every single politician from both parties. Some of this is good, some is bad, and occasionally every one rises above self interest to do what is right but this doesn’t happen that often.
There is no governement on Earth, and no possibility of one, that upon receiving the currency of power can remain uncorrupted to the extent that they will willingly surrender any of it or act altruistically. In our case this currency is the ability to distribute money from the public treasury.
Now, sometimes the self-interest of politicians coincides with good policy. Sometimes good policy is not popular and politicians support it anyways in the hopes that they may take credit when its fruits become apparent. Sometimes, much of the time, public policy is bad and leads to horrific unintended consequences but as these occur after the election, the illusion of goodness is all that counts.
Giving away even more freebies in the name of Social Justice is bad public policy, especially in the long run, and everybody with any knowledge of economics, more particularly where the GDP comes from, must ask himself how any economy can honor the financial obligations it incurs when even now the these are in the trillions upon trillions of dollars without going belly up.
If you think that our European cousins are not having preoblems funding thier lavish social programs you don’t read much.
Could you please tell me what these problems are, exactly? Obviously, I can’t be reading much since I’m living here in the socialistic hell-hole of Europe, Scandinavia, and have no idea what you’re talking about. We have never been wealthier, never had a lower unemployment rate, than right now – in fact, it seems the more money we give to social security, the more people actually get a job.
Sure, people complain about the taxes, it’s traditional in these parts, and some people think the minimum five weeks of paid vacation a year isn’t enough, or the $20/hour minimum wage is too low, or the 37-hour working week too long, and certainly our economy must be suffering, what with Denmark being hailed by the Economist, for the second year in a row, as the best place in the world to do business over the next five years.
It seems logical to me that when schools are free, more people get an education; when the state catches you if you fall, it’s easier to get back on your feet; when health care is free, you live a longer, better, and more productive life. Would you please explain to me why this is wrong? I just don’t seem to get it.
~Cecilie.
[...] What is social justice? I wrote a bit about social justice last week in the great retainer medicine debates. Panda Bear and Graham took the baton and continued the debate later in the week. Unfortunately, Panda’s blog is unobtainable this morning, but I can link to Graham -Panda doesn’t understand me or social justice. [...]
From a practical, rather than a idealistic (liberal or conservative), standpoint I think that the middle ground holds the answer.
Yes – if you do not target your social benefits, or make them too lavish then you will end up having people freeload off the system. Growing up in New Zealand I have seen the welfare system abused.
The opposite solution, insufficient aid for those in genuine need leads to the problems of crime and homelessness that are seen in the US (and yes, homelessness is far less pronounced back home than in the US)
The middle ground is for the government to *attempt* to assess need and to *attempt* to provide aid that helps people get training, job placement and to “break the cycle” of poverty.
The key is that a citizen is EXPECTED to attend that training, to prove that they are attempting to find employment, and to work the jobs they are offered or they lose their benefits. At the same time the benefits should be only what is required to survive. If they are too lavish then staying at home watching TV becomes certainly more attractive (and at times even more lucrative) than flipping burgers.
Nothing is perfect, and these systems are abused, but I feel that doing a *little bit* too much is better than *a lot* too little.
Most governments strike a balance somewhere.
On a related issue I do not think that government provided health care causes a cycle of dependency. People are not going to go out and find work solely because they desperately want to buy BCBS at $300 a month, and they are not going to rely upon welfare if you only provide healthcare free…. after all free ED (or FP) visits are not going to pay for malt liqour or cigarettes (or rent).
I would envisage a balance in healthcare as being the best solution also.
Something like a basic level of health insurance (ED, surgical, even FP visits) provided by the government out of general tax revenues (based upon means testing or you have a co-pay).
You would then be free, and indeed encouraged, to buy supplemental private insurance, buy boutique care out of pocket, and do whatever you wish above and beyond this basic coverage.
This would thus be a “shared risk pool” without all of the machivelian maneuvering to compel citizens to buy private insurance.
The idea is to cover everyone, at least at a basic level. This way you ensure that people who get dinged with a pre-existing condition, or get so sick that they can not afford private insurance rates any more do not get left out in the cold 100%
Graham,
Well said. I read Uncle Panda’s blog post earlier today with a healthy dose of skepticism and am glad to see someone provide an articulate case for social justice.
I go to med school in one of the poorest immigrant neighborhoods in New York City and teach in an enrichment program for teens. Let me tell you, the people I see here are, for the most part, not freeloaders with a sense of entitlement. They are proud, self-reliant people, struggling to learn a new language at 50, struggling to get their kids through and out of a school system that does not prepare them for college, struggling (as all immigrants struggle) to reconcile their home culture with the dominant culture of the States.
I am a firm believer in autonomy and maintain a healthy cynicism about governmental programs. But equality completes my trinity, and a health care system that rations as ours does — on the basis of income — necessitates change.
What articulate case for social justice? Graham, articulate fellow that he is, can only say that it is about “equality,” a concept that even he will admit is so nebulous, having as many meanings as there are people, that it is not a firm footing upon which to construct social policy.
Another commenter believes that social justice happens when whitey atones for the sins of his distant ancestors, ancestors who in many cases were not even in the United States at the time these sins went down.
Articulate nothing. The only rational guide for social policy is human nature and a deep suspicion for anybody who has the power to bribe the electorate with someone else’s money. That and a fundamental understanding of economics which is generally absent anywhere you look.
There is, by the way, a huge difference between an immigrant struggling to make it in the United States and the typical freeloader who has arrived. Is that not clear? I also want to point out that you have a funny definition of the word “self-reliant.” If you are a dependent of the state, you are not self-reliant, by definition.
My father, when he came to the states almost sixty years ago, did not get a dime of aid or help from anyone. That’s self-reliance.