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

[Loren Pechtel]

And you persist in ignoring the fact that we are talking about people who need aid.

If I see aid misused why should I be expected to contribute more?

Loren,

Who do you think these people are, how long do you think they are on "welfare," and do you think they don't work?

You're asking for help for them.

 

[Toni]

Loren,

Who do you think these people are, how long do you think they are on "welfare," and do you think they don't work?

You're asking for help for them.

That really doesn't answer AA's questions. I would like to read your answers.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren,

Who do you think these people are, how long do you think they are on "welfare," and do you think they don't work?

You're asking for help for them.

FAIL!

Loren,

Who do you think these people are, how long do you think they are on "welfare," and do you think they don't work?

 

[Emily Lake]

The "undeserving" are wider than the frauds and con artists. They include those whose problems stem from mismanagement rather than an inability to earn enough.

Have you ever actually been poor, Loren Pechtel? It's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think. It's not as cold and emotionless a calculation as you appear to want it to be, and frankly, unless you have some degree of experience, I'm inlcined to say that you shouldn't cast stones.

As with the prior discussions around racism and sexism, I strongly suggest that you set aside your assumptions (for they are assumptions), and try actually considering the dynamics at work. You consistently and repeatedly over-simplify these social issues, and then dismiss them on the basis of your simplifications. You don't actually understand what is happening, or how it works. You imagine one very simplistic scenario, one very naive view of the situation, and then you assume that your scenario represents the entirety of the dynamic. You don't seem inclined to look further and actually learn about how it works, what the forces are, and what the complications are.

You aren't making logical and informed assessments, you're passing prejudiced and dogmatic verdicts.

 

[Emily Lake]

What I want to know is who you are to judge what other people can and cannot have? What other people can and cannot afford?

Toni, I don't think Axulus has any objection to people accepting gifts, or having nice things. And I don't think that he (or she) is necessarily judging what they can and can't afford.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that the heart of the matter is in regard to what they're affording with other people's monies.

The intent of charity, and of welfare (which is government managed charity, essentially), is to help people in need to get by. It's to fill in the gaps. For most people, big screen TVs don't constitute a need, nor do $200 sneakers. So for most people, I think there's a fairly natural sense of betrayal to see someone who is using the charity of others in order to procure luxuries. It ends up seeming as though they're taking advantage of the good nature of other people.

I know that reality is more complex than that. But I think that it is important to understand where the outrage and the dissatisfaction and the judgment comes from. You must be able to understand all parties in a transaction in order to find common ground and a satisfactory resolution. And in truth, as taxpayers contributing to the funds used for welfare endeavors, we are all parties to this transaction.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh I follow fine.

Poor people need to do what non poor people tell them to do with their own money and what they need to do is not spend one dime on anything ever not cleared through the prism of non poor people's ideas about the proper behavior of poor people. Poor people are children and second class citizens and proper targets to be belittled and berated.

Oh I follow fine.

What I don't do is feel obligated to tell grown folks what to do with the money they make, or even they receive in assistance. I think that a person SHOULD buy a frivolous thing once in a while, even the poor ones. I think using a nice gift in public should NOT raise the ire of people who don't fucking know you. How is it their business?

Athena, imagine I come to you, as a friend (I hope anyway), and tell you that things have gone horribly wrong - I've had a car accident, and I have to pay for the deductible, which means I'm not going to be able to pay my electric bill and my water bill this month, and gee, as a friend, can you please help me out by giving me $500? Not lending, mind you, but just outright giving me $500 as charity to help me through this rough patch.

Now imagine that you give me the $500... and I spend part of it on my electric bill, but then I go and blow the rest of it on a new dress I saw that I just really loved and I was feeling so down from the car accident, and the days of work that I missed that I really needed to treat myself to make myself feel better.

So then I come back to you and I tell you that I need another $500, because I still haven't paid the water bill... and since I missed work for 3 days, I didn't get paid so I'm in the hole for my phone and my insurance bill too... and hey, do you like the dress I bought?

Will you give me another $500? Do you feel that you have a right to specify how that $500 is used by me? How do you feel about how I've used the money that you gave me?

 

[Emily Lake]

<snip>

You are NOT required to respond, just because they are directing questions and comments to you. If it makes you insane to have the same unending argument over and over, then don't have it I hereby grant you permission to completely ignore all the people in this thread that you feel are brick walls. Just don't do it. Save your fingertips for the people that will enjoy discussion with.

Just do me a favor, and let me know when I cross the line and become a brick wall, okay?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

<snip>

You are NOT required to respond, just because they are directing questions and comments to you. If it makes you insane to have the same unending argument over and over, then don't have it I hereby grant you permission to completely ignore all the people in this thread that you feel are brick walls. Just don't do it. Save your fingertips for the people that will enjoy discussion with.

Just do me a favor, and let me know when I cross the line and become a brick wall, okay?

I live in a state that is being run by tea party republicans bent on disenfranchising black people, underpaying poor people, and polluting the air and water of all people. Because the democrats didn't answer back fast enough and forcefully enough.

Personally, I can't let a LIE stand or a sin be held equal to moral act.

I marched for the desegregation of the schools of SE NC when I was four holding my Gramma's hand. I have been in the fight now for going on 46 years. I have been manhandled by the police, arrested, and maced, all for things I believed were right and just and true. and now I should sit silent while people who have not done any of that for any reason pontificate the righteousness of their of shortcomings, prejudices, and inadequacies?

Emily I like you.

But that dog won't hunt.

 

[Toni]

What I want to know is who you are to judge what other people can and cannot have? What other people can and cannot afford?

Toni, I don't think Axulus has any objection to people accepting gifts, or having nice things. And I don't think that he (or she) is necessarily judging what they can and can't afford.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that the heart of the matter is in regard to what they're affording with other people's monies.

The intent of charity, and of welfare (which is government managed charity, essentially), is to help people in need to get by. It's to fill in the gaps. For most people, big screen TVs don't constitute a need, nor do $200 sneakers. So for most people, I think there's a fairly natural sense of betrayal to see someone who is using the charity of others in order to procure luxuries. It ends up seeming as though they're taking advantage of the good nature of other people.

I know that reality is more complex than that. But I think that it is important to understand where the outrage and the dissatisfaction and the judgment comes from. You must be able to understand all parties in a transaction in order to find common ground and a satisfactory resolution. And in truth, as taxpayers contributing to the funds used for welfare endeavors, we are all parties to this transaction.

Actually, yes Axulus does seem to have a problem with poor people having nicer stuff than he has, no matter the source.

I am waiting for him--or anyone in this thread to raise the same objections to wealthy people--who, btw, have plenty of governmental assistance.

I don't understand why anyone believes that they know better than someone else how to spend their income.

I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people are unable or unwilling to grasp that the system is set up to give better deals on EVERYTHING to people who already have a lot vs the deal that is given to people who have very little.

 

[lpetrich]

Actually, yes Axulus does seem to have a problem with poor people having nicer stuff than he has, no matter the source.

That's why I consider right-wingers' claimed love of private charity so hollow. Simply consider what happened to Greta Christina.

I am waiting for him--or anyone in this thread to raise the same objections to wealthy people--who, btw, have plenty of governmental assistance.

Right wingers often seem very happy that rich people can get tax breaks for horses that they can't get for dogs or cats, and very happy that rich people can get tax breaks for yachts that they can't get for motorboats.


BTW, I crunched the numbers from that welfare-statism paper, and I found some most interesting results. I did a linear regression to find the ca. 1990 AFDC payments and also those payments relative to the state's per-capita GDP, all as a fraction of the population which is black. I found these lines:
Absolute payment = $459/mo * (1 - (black fraction)/(58.3%))
Payment / GDP pc = 11.7% * (1 - (black fraction)/(61.5%))
So a state with 60% blacks would pay $0 in welfare.

I notice that states with few blacks range from very generous to very stingy, while states with many blacks are all very stingy.

I'll next have to do a regression on political tendencies, to see if that makes a difference. One might expect Republican-leaning states to be more stingy than Democratic-leaning ones, but Alaska and Utah seem to be exceptions -- they are relatively generous. They also have relatively few blacks. Interestingly, Mia Love, the first black female Republican in the House, is from Utah. She's also from Haiti, which means that she may not have much connection with the American black community.

 

[Togo]

We could set up morality commissions. This is where, in order to get assistance, the poor person has to be examined by a panel of judges to demonstrate that they are morally worthy of assistance. They were very popular towards the start of the century. That way, money can be channelled to morally worthy people, and we can let everyone else starve or turn to crime. That seems a little harsh though, so it would probably be better to set up a little suicide booths, so that those who make life choices we don't approve of can be encouraged to take an easy way out that reduces the burden on us richer folk.

Because otherwise, some small % of the assistance we give people might be wasted, and there's nothing worse than that. Nothing.

 

[Derec]

Actually, yes Axulus does seem to have a problem with poor people having nicer stuff than he has, no matter the source.

The worst thing is actually the bellyaching the "poor" and their allies do when they complain about what financial dire straits the purchases of all that "nice stuff" have put them in.

I don't understand why anyone believes that they know better than someone else how to spend their income.

If you read the WaPo article and don't come to the conclusion that you know better than them how to spend their income, let me know. I seriously doubt you would not come up with a good idea or a dozen.

I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people are unable or unwilling to grasp that the system is set up to give better deals on EVERYTHING to people who already have a lot vs the deal that is given to people who have very little.

Well it's a matter of risk. If you have a good credit and plenty of disposable income you will get good deals on loans because you are a good repayment risk. If you have little disposable income and have ruined your credit, perhaps even ran afoul of ChexSystems and can't open a checking account, you are a very poor risk. Why should banks continue giving you loans? So if you still want fancy furniture (like the $1,500 sofa/loveseat combo) you will have to pay through your nose. Of course, nobody is forcing you to compound bad buying decisions like that. That's the whole point of the criticism. They would be much better off financially in the long run if they would be a bit more thrifty and frugal until they get their shit together. And isn't them being better off financially in the long run what people who say they care about the poor should care about, rather than whether they have nice furniture they can't afford in their double wide?

 

[Togo]

And isn't them being better off financially in the long run what people who say they care about the poor should care about, rather than whether they have nice furniture they can't afford in their double wide?

Well, no, not in the sense you're saying.

The point is not to maximise their bank account, it's to maximise them. If getting new shoes or a new sofa helps them get a new job, and get their life back on track, then I'm all for it. I can't tell whether a new sofa is really what they need, and nor can you. If you want to support a process whereby the government makes that choice for them, then say so. If you're just trolling for excuses to cut money for poor people, then say so. It's likely that in a fairly large nation, some of the money will be spent on things that aren't strictly needed, just like any other program or person or business. Why is this a vital concern?

 

[lpetrich]

I have decided to extend my previous post's calculations by factoring in the partisan tilt, the division between Democrats and Republicans. I measured that tilt by taking the 2012 Presidential election and finding (D-R)/(D+R). It can range from -1 to +1.

I found a very odd result. Pro-Republican states are indeed more stingy than pro-Democratic states, but the more pro-Republican a state is, the more generous it is. So Republicans seem willing to help fellow Republicans, even if not as much as Democrats helping fellow Democrats.

Two of the more generous states are Utah and Alaska. Utah had something of a favorite-son factor in 2012, so I'd have to be careful there. I'd have to collect more election data for best results. It may not be enough to collect the 2008 data, because Alaska had a favorite-daughter factor back then.


But using (black fraction) and (abs(partisan tilt)) did not give much improvement over using (black fraction) alone.

 

[dx713]

And isn't them being better off financially in the long run what people who say they care about the poor should care about, rather than whether they have nice furniture they can't afford in their double wide?

Well, no, not in the sense you're saying.

The point is not to maximise their bank account, it's to maximise them. If getting new shoes or a new sofa helps them get a new job, and get their life back on track, then I'm all for it. I can't tell whether a new sofa is really what they need, and nor can you. If you want to support a process whereby the government makes that choice for them, then say so. If you're just trolling for excuses to cut money for poor people, then say so. It's likely that in a fairly large nation, some of the money will be spent on things that aren't strictly needed, just like any other program or person or business. Why is this a vital concern?

Yes, a lot of people are dumb.
But most people, except maybe those who are both dumb and lazy, love their freedom, and will extend a surprising amount of energy to bypass what is imposed on them, and the poor are no different. Plus, you can't know each case individually, and some might have real good ideas on what they need (and the average probably not worst than you and I).
So, (excluding the straightforward option of doing nothing to help them, of course, I've no interest in discussing that), either you
- tell them that you know better than them what they need, raise the cost of the programme to check they're not bypassing the obligations, then try to recoup the cost by excluding those showing initiative and trying to bypass, and end with a program supporting the lazy dumbs and criminals with initiative.
- just give them the money and have it at least be helpful for the few bright ones and moderately helpful for the ones with initiative (even dumb people don't always get it wrong)
(Note that I'm not saying poor are dumber. I'm saying a lot of people are dumb, all kinds together. I've known dumb future nuclear scientists, and I've made plenty of dumb choices myself)

The second option will give you a better society in the end.
The only place where I see a "but they will misspend the money" argument to be considered is where there are third parties at risk (money given to care for children or elderly).
And even there, I'm wary about it.
It might make us all warm and fuzzy to know that little girl will have at least one warm meal per day because the school has been paid for it directly instead of giving the lunch money to her parents who might use it on drugs or something, but if one of the parents is stuck at home and jobless anyway, doesn't it make more sense for him/her to prepare the lunch and use the money to buy her something nice for her birthday? Simple control might be more effective than withholding the money (and of course, totally witholding help is even less of a solution in those cases)

 

[ksen]

I like how conservatives argue that people will spend money better than the government would . . . unless they're poor.

 

[Derec]

Well, no, not in the sense you're saying.

In what sense then?

The point is not to maximise their bank account, it's to maximise them.

You can't have it both ways. If you think it's ok for them to spend money of stupid shit they can't afford then you can't say them being broke is the fault of greedy banks, stingy government, or anybody else but themselves.

If getting new shoes or a new sofa helps them get a new job,

I do not see how a fancy new sofa can get you a job unless you want to start a casting couch type website. Apropos, why do they call it "love seat" anyway? It's way too short to make love on ...
As far as shoes, decent shoes and clothes can definitely help (as opposed to threadbare sneakers) but there is a big difference between decent and overpriced designer $200 shit.

and get their life back on track, then I'm all for it.

I can't tell whether a new sofa is really what they need, and nor can you.

Oh yes I can. Not that I want them sitting on crates but there is Craigslist, there is IKEA, there is the idea or buying perhaps the sofa first . You don't have to have a $1,500 sofa/loveseat combo and you certainly don't have to have it right now, especially if your credit is ruined and it ends up costing you $4,150 with all the finance charges. In fact, a lot more as they admit to buy other shit they don't need at the rent-to-own place when they go down to pay their bill.

[quote If you want to support a process whereby the government makes that choice for them, then say so. If you're just trolling for excuses to cut money for poor people, then say so. It's likely that in a fairly large nation, some of the money will be spent on things that aren't strictly needed, just like any other program or person or business. Why is this a vital concern?

I do not know what the best solution is. But when government assistance is merely enabling people to make self-destructive decisions then there is something wrong. When people who are on government assistance have nicer shit (because they don't care if they can't afford it) than people ultimately paying for it that's a problem too.

I guess we are not allowed to criticize this woman or second-guess any of her life choices either?
Weeping mom arrested for abandoning kids while she went to a job interview 'refused offers of work and spent donation money on making a rap album'

Shanesha Taylor received donations of more than $114,000 after claiming that she had no option but to leave her two little boys in a sweltering car
Now one of her biggest supporters has accused her of refusing to work and spending $6,000 on her children's father's rap album
Part of a deal with prosecutors to avoid charges included Taylor putting some of the $114,000 raised into a trust for her children - but she didn't
She will now face trial on December 3 on two felony charges of child abuse

After all she is a progressive trifecta: poor, female and a minority.

 

[ksen]

derec, does your white man's burden ever get too heavy?

 

[Derec]

derec, does your white man's burden ever get too heavy?

Because I am a white man I am not allowed to have an opinion on certain subjects? Or at least not an opinion not deemed politically incorrect by the so-called progressives?
And by the way: the $1,500 sofa/loveseat couple are white, just FYI since you deem race as being so important in everything.

 

[Togo]

In what sense then?

As described in the rest of the post.

The point is not to maximise their bank account, it's to maximise them.

You can't have it both ways. If you think it's ok for them to spend money of stupid shit they can't afford then you can't say them being broke is the fault of greedy banks, stingy government, or anybody else but themselves.

Why not?

Seriously? Why can't someone be poor for more than one reason? Let's say I like buying slushies, a sugar drink associated with tooth decay. And then someone comes along and hits me in the mouth with a baseball club. Is my slushie evidence that I didn't lose my teeth due to being hit with a club?

If getting new shoes or a new sofa helps them get a new job,

I do not see how a fancy new sofa can get you a job unless

Yes, I know you don't. But then you aren't the person in situation making the decision. The article cited several reasons, from 'wanting to feel normal' through to the fact that the old sofa was gouging holes in the floor (A serious problem in a trailer)

Apropos, why do they call it "love seat" anyway? It's way too short to make love on ...

It's intended for two people to sit on, rather than a sofa which is intended for three. Two people sitting in close proximity used to imply a courting couple, hence love seat.

I can't tell whether a new sofa is really what they need, and nor can you.

Oh yes I can. Not that I want them sitting on crates but there is Craigslist, there is IKEA, there is the idea or buying perhaps the sofa first .

All of which were mentioned in the article that you read.

Again, I'm not sure why you want to get into the business of analysing the choices of the poor, and lambasting them from your armchair. Can you give a reason why this is useful?

You don't have to have a $1,500 sofa/loveseat combo and you certainly don't have to have it right now, especially if your credit is ruined and it ends up costing you $4,150 with all the finance charges. In fact, a lot more as they admit to buy other shit they don't need at the rent-to-own place when they go down to pay their bill.

So the problem is that they shouldn't have nice things?

If you want to support a process whereby the government makes that choice for them, then say so. If you're just trolling for excuses to cut money for poor people, then say so. It's likely that in a fairly large nation, some of the money will be spent on things that aren't strictly needed, just like any other program or person or business. Why is this a vital concern?

I do not know what the best solution is.

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you why it was an important problem

When people who are on government assistance have nicer shit (because they don't care if they can't afford it) than people paying for it that's a problem too.

Ok, so poor people aren't allowed to have nice things. There's an easy solution - just make theft legal from anyone who earns less than a certain amount per year. That way they'll only ever have stuff no one else wants, and eat stuff no one else wants to eat, to show that they're poor.

However, I'm still waiting for some explanation as to why this is a problem. You say it's a problem, but not why. Are you jealous of their trailer? Or is it just that a rocking mini-sofa is too good for them?