The Culture of Poverty, the Culture of Cruelty: How America Fights the Poor and Not Poverty

[AthenaAwakened]

In 1981, Texas Senator Phil Gramm lamented: “We’re the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat.” It was, to Gramm, clear evidence of how exaggerated the problem of economic hardship in America was, and how horrible the nation’s welfare state had become. Apparently, poor people aren’t really suffering or deserving of much sympathy until their ribcages are showing and their eye-sockets have all but swallowed their eyes. If the poor are fat, it’s not because so many of the cheapest and most readily available foods in poor communities are high in empty calories, sugar and non-nutritional ingredients—or because, in general, the U.S. food supply is overly-processed and unhealthy—but rather, it must be because poor people have it too good and are able to do a lot of fancy eating at public expense.

America’s culture of cruelty has long been fed by this kind of thinking: namely, the belief that the poor and unemployed really aren’t suffering that badly. This “poverty denialism” rests on three claims: first, that America’s poor are fabulously wealthy by global standards and thus, should essentially stop complaining; second, that the poor buy expensive food with their SNAP benefits and have all manner of consumer goods in their homes, which means they aren’t poor in any sense that should cause concern; and third, that large numbers of welfare recipients commit fraud in order to get benefits, and then misuse the benefits they receive. In short, these are not the deserving poor—their pain is not real.

http://www.timwise.org/2014/11/pove...g-the-poor-as-right-wing-amusement/#more-6141

I have written a little on this myself

Right wingers (on these boards mostly also self professed libertarians) argue first that there are two types of poor, a deserving poor (DP) and an undeserving poor (UP). They then argue (1) that one group is far larger than the other and the larger group is always the undeserving poor or (2) simply that the number of undeserving poor is large and never give a proportion just that all they encounter are the undeserving. The next step is to say that these large numbers of UP are large enough to form a justification for state revenues (specifically THEIR tax dollars) not being spent on programs designed to help all the poor, deserving or not. Some of the more tendered hearted of this group will argue that the state should make exception for the DP, and then these generous souls place barriers in the path of poor people seeking help as a way to weed out the UP who may try to cheat the system. This system usually filters out the very people it is set up to filter in while missing the more devious who figure out ways around the barriers. Honest people do not connive; they give up.

This leaves the remainder of the righteous who then point to the system that fails to help the DP and enriches the UP and say, “See, programs don’t work and cost money that is better spent elsewhere.” Therefore, the result is the same no matter where on the right you begin you lend no help for the poor, deserving or undeserving. Neat little trick how that just happens to work out.

Pleas to relieve suffering are answered with words to the effect; the harshness of doing without will kick these people into gear and incentivize them to do for themselves. Poverty is now an ennobling agent that teaches responsibility to the poor and the wonder working power of accountability to the righteous.

Does it work? Not really. Poverty of material things often leads to a poverty of spirit. People left in degradation too often come to believe it is all they deserve and lose hope and the drive to aspire to something higher. Anger and despair replace benevolence and hope leaving people no will to do better.

http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/blog.php?b=207

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't want the government to fight poverty, why are you complaining that the government isn't doing it??


Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

 

[bilby]

You don't want the government to fight poverty, why are you complaining that the government isn't doing it??


Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

You appear to be confusing 'poverty', which is a lack of means - usually money; with 'depression', which is a debilitating mental state internal to the person - one of the causes of which may be poverty.

 

[Nexus]

Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

Someone just needs to explain to this kid it's simply all in his head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't want the government to fight poverty, why are you complaining that the government isn't doing it??


Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

You appear to be confusing 'poverty', which is a lack of means - usually money; with 'depression', which is a debilitating mental state internal to the person - one of the causes of which may be poverty.

No. You are confusing "poor"--the lack of money, with "poverty"--a condition where people ensure they handle things poorly and ensure they will continue to have a lack of money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

View attachment 1489

Someone just needs to explain to this kid it's simply all in his head.

That's not in a country with a decent economy. And note that the description is "poor child"

 

[Axulus]

The point trying to be made is that poverty in a developed country like the United States is mostly a hardship. Rarely is it life threatening or causing extreme suffering, especially in comparison to poverty in non-developed countries. Additionally, such hardship can be reduced to a significant degree in a developed country without government intervention, through community action, support from friends and family, and self efforts. Government intervention can backfire with unintended consequences and lack of compassion (being a faceless, distant bureaucracy), which you apparently agree with in that it can actually be used to fight the poor and not poverty.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The point trying to be made is that poverty in a developed country like the United States is mostly a travesty. Too often is it life threatening or causing extreme suffering, especially in comparison to extreme wealth in this most developed country. Additionally, such a travesty can be reduced to a significant degree in a developed country with government intervention, through community action, support from friends and family, and self efforts. The efforts of charities, which depend on donations and volunteers. can backfire with unintended consequences and lack of compassion for those arbitrarily deemed unworthy(being anything from a fundamentalist religious group or ideological induction center), which you apparently agree with in that it can actually be used to fight the poor and not poverty.

FIFY

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What Americans Value (and it ain't poor people)



“The new report, Share No More: The Criminalization of Efforts to Feed People In Need, documents the recent known cases of food-sharing restrictions throughout the country. Since January 2013, 21 cities have successfully restricted the practice of sharing food with people who are experiencing homelessness while at least ten others have introduced ordinances that are pending approval.”

“These values now aren’t the preserve of extreme activists, maniacs, loonies in Anonymous masks tipping over police vans. [They are the values of] lovely, war veteran, elderly old men. Because the values we’re talking about are just compassion and fairness,” Brand says.

“This bearing in mind that America just had midterm elections where $4 billion was spent on campaigning. That just telling you that something’s good,” Brand says.

Brand finishes the video saying, “The system is corrupt. Little, old lovely men can’t feed the homeless but rich corporations can do what they want to ensure that their political stooges are placed in office.”

 

[Axulus]

What Americans Value (and it ain't poor people)



“The new report, Share No More: The Criminalization of Efforts to Feed People In Need, documents the recent known cases of food-sharing restrictions throughout the country. Since January 2013, 21 cities have successfully restricted the practice of sharing food with people who are experiencing homelessness while at least ten others have introduced ordinances that are pending approval.”

“These values now aren’t the preserve of extreme activists, maniacs, loonies in Anonymous masks tipping over police vans. [They are the values of] lovely, war veteran, elderly old men. Because the values we’re talking about are just compassion and fairness,” Brand says.

“This bearing in mind that America just had midterm elections where $4 billion was spent on campaigning. That just telling you that something’s good,” Brand says.

Brand finishes the video saying, “The system is corrupt. Little, old lovely men can’t feed the homeless but rich corporations can do what they want to ensure that their political stooges are placed in office.”

And libertarian groups (among others) are fighting these efforts:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOAHbA7Tbdk[/youtube]

 

[laughing dog]

Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

No, poverty is generally observable.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What Americans Value (and it ain't poor people)



“The new report, Share No More: The Criminalization of Efforts to Feed People In Need, documents the recent known cases of food-sharing restrictions throughout the country. Since January 2013, 21 cities have successfully restricted the practice of sharing food with people who are experiencing homelessness while at least ten others have introduced ordinances that are pending approval.”

“These values now aren’t the preserve of extreme activists, maniacs, loonies in Anonymous masks tipping over police vans. [They are the values of] lovely, war veteran, elderly old men. Because the values we’re talking about are just compassion and fairness,” Brand says.

“This bearing in mind that America just had midterm elections where $4 billion was spent on campaigning. That just telling you that something’s good,” Brand says.

Brand finishes the video saying, “The system is corrupt. Little, old lovely men can’t feed the homeless but rich corporations can do what they want to ensure that their political stooges are placed in office.”

And libertarian groups (among others) are fighting these efforts:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOAHbA7Tbdk[/youtube]

And?

 

[Axulus]

You don't want the government to fight poverty, why are you complaining that the government isn't doing it??


Poverty is a mental state internal to the person, not merely a lack of money.

What about cases where a person's labor on the market isn't valuable enough to support a minimum acceptable standard of living? It may not be a mental state in those cases and, even if it is, changing the mental state won't help.

 

[Axulus]

And libertarian groups (among others) are fighting these efforts:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOAHbA7Tbdk[/youtube]

And?

Meaning it's not the groups you malign as lacking compassion ("self-proclaimed libertarians and right-wingers") responsible for this particular issue. It mostly has to do with city officials thinking they can just sweep the problem under the rug and make their parks look nicer without the "pesky" homeless ruining their view - out of sight out of mind. Government bureaucracy can sure be cruel, can it not? Why do you put so much faith in such cruel bureaucracy to tackle the problem of poverty?

 

[laughing dog]

And?

Meaning it's not the groups you malign as lacking compassion ("self-proclaimed libertarians and right-wingers") responsible for this particular issue. It mostly has to do with city officials thinking they can just sweep the problem under the rug and make their parks look nicer without the "pesky" homeless ruining their view - out of sight out of mind. Government bureaucracy can sure be cruel, can it not? Why do you put so much faith in such cruel bureaucracy to tackle the problem of poverty?

I think you miss the forest for the trees. The cuts in the social welfare net helped to generate the homeless who are in the park.

 

[Axulus]

Meaning it's not the groups you malign as lacking compassion ("self-proclaimed libertarians and right-wingers") responsible for this particular issue. It mostly has to do with city officials thinking they can just sweep the problem under the rug and make their parks look nicer without the "pesky" homeless ruining their view - out of sight out of mind. Government bureaucracy can sure be cruel, can it not? Why do you put so much faith in such cruel bureaucracy to tackle the problem of poverty?

I think you miss the forest for the trees. The cuts in the social welfare net helped to generate the homeless who are in the park.

Which cuts? The last major change to the nets occurred under Clinton and the result, on balance, has mostly been deemed more positive than negative.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you miss the forest for the trees. The cuts in the social welfare net helped to generate the homeless who are in the park.

Which cuts? The last major change to the nets occurred under Clinton and the result, on balance, has mostly been deemed more positive than negative.

Clinton triangulated the conservatives on that issue at the federal level. But the social safety net also consists of state and local policies as well (such as dealing with the homeless). And whether or not the last major change is deemed more positive or negative is irrelevant to the issue of those in poverty now.

 

[Axulus]

Which cuts? The last major change to the nets occurred under Clinton and the result, on balance, has mostly been deemed more positive than negative.

Clinton triangulated the conservatives on that issue at the federal level. But the social safety net also consists of state and local policies as well (such as dealing with the homeless). And whether or not the last major change is deemed more positive or negative is irrelevant to the issue of those in poverty now.

Yes, but you specifically referred to cuts. The earned income credit has been expanded. Medicaid has been strengthened and expanded (in most states). Unemployment insurance has been lengthened. Perscription drug benefits were expanded for those on Medicare under Bush II. On balance, over the last 20 years, I would say the net has been expanded. Do you have an analysis that suggests otherwise?

 

[Axulus]

The Astonishing Decline of Homelessness in America

Despite a housing crisis, a great recession, rising income inequality, and elevated poverty, there is some good news among the most vulnerable segment of American society. America’s homeless population – an estimated 633,000 people – has declined in the last decade.

This seems incredible – perhaps literally, so. The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a leader in homelessness service and research, estimates a 17% decrease in total homelessness from 2005 to 2012. As a refresher: this covers a period when unemployment doubled (2007-2010) and foreclosure proceedings quadrupled (2005-2009).

It’s equally shocking that politicians haven’t trumpeted this achievement. Nor have many journalists. Yes, there’s a veritable media carnival attending every Bureau of Labor Statistics “Jobs Report” on the first Friday of the month. We track the unemployment rate obsessively. But the decline in homelessness hasn’t attracted much cheerleading.

And what about the presidents responsible for this feat? General anti-poverty measures – for example, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit -- have helped to raise post-tax income for the poorest families. But our last two presidents have made targeted efforts, as well. President George W. Bush’s “housing first” program helped reduce chronic homelessness by around 30% from 2005 to 2007. The “housing first” approach put emphasis on permanent housing for individuals before treatment for disability and addiction.

The Great Recession threatened to undo this progress, but the stimulus package of 2009 created a new $1.5 billion dollar program, the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. This furthered what the National Alliance called “ground-breaking work at the federal level…to improve the homelessness system by adopting evidence-based, cost effective interventions.” The program is thought to have aided 700,000 at-risk or homeless people in its first year alone, “preventing a significant increase in homelessness.”

Since then, the Obama administration also quietly announced in 2010 a 10-year federal plan to end homelessness. This is all to say that the control of homelessness, in spite of countervailing forces, can be traced directly to Washington—a fact openly admitted by independent organizations like the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ng-decline-of-homelessness-in-america/279050/

The number of homeless people in the U.S. shrank from 2012 to 2013, according to a large government study that found the number of veterans and others who are homeless declined for the third straight year. But homeless numbers rose in New York and other states, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The study also found that nearly 20 percent of homeless people were in either New York City (11 percent of the U.S. total) or Los Angeles (9 percent).

The HUD study uses data from a count conducted by U.S. shelters on a single night, in which they reported how many people were using their facilities, and how many were left without shelter. For the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report, the data was collected last January.

The tally found that 610,042 people were homeless on that night, reflecting a drop of nearly 4 percent from 2012 to 2013, the agency says. Of that number, 36 percent — 222,197 people — were in families, representing a drop of 7 percent for that group.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...less-declines-again-but-gains-arent-universal

Nets getting cut, huh? Fight against poor people, really?

I'm all for evidence based results passing a cost/benefit analysis despite my general skepticism of government. Let's keep this up.

 

[Axulus]

Still declining, another 5% decline from the beginning of 2013 to the beginning of 2014.

All Homeless People
• In January 2014, 578,424 people were homeless
on a given night. Most (69 percent) were
staying in residential programs for homeless
people, and the rest (31 percent) were found in
unsheltered locations

https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf