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

[AthenaAwakened]

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,

"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)."

What is incorrect in that statement?

As Jason Harvester has gone to great lengths to make clear, not every self-professed libertarian is a libertarian. And I have heard and read right wingers on the internet and IRL make those arguments. Posters and contributers on the websites for The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute LOVE those arguments.

So while it is nice that among others, there are libertarians, protesting these laws, it doesn't necessarily mean that all or even most libertarians are out in the streets fighting for the right to feed people.

- - - Updated - - -

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,

"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)."

What is incorrect in that statement?

As Jason Harvester has gone to great lengths to make clear, not every self-professed libertarian is a libertarian. And I have heard and read right wingers on the internet and IRL make those arguments. Posters and contributers on the websites for The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute LOVE those arguments.

So while it is nice that among others, there are libertarians, protesting these laws, it doesn't necessarily mean that all or even most libertarians are out in the streets fighting for the right to feed people.

 

[J842P]

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

 

[Sabine Grant]

IMO setting the bar at homelessness to define who is poor and who is not in First World Nations neglects to consider that the moment an individual cannot support their BLEs or Basic Living Expenses, their quality of life is going to be greatly impaired. In my first assignments, I visited homes where sustaining the cost of basic utilities was a persistent struggle. I visited homes where I would find cans of dog food when there was no dog around. Visited homes where being able to afford the cost of pest control was out of question resulting in rodents and insects in every room. Visited a home where a 14 year old girl was her partial quadriplegic mother's caregiver while she also cared for her 5 year old sibling. And so on and so on.

 

[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

And not even off the first page and these very arguments are used in the thread

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

So much treachery in the world, you can't even trust bums on the street to be bums, to be the deserving poor.

Poor folk need to rid their ranks of the undeserving poor, purge them all, then we, the final arbitors, of who is and is not poor can in good conscience help the oh so few people left, the deserving poor.

 

[Toni]

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

You're behind a couple of wars or more.

There are plenty of vets from more recent wars who are homeless, often due to PTSD and sometimes other injuries acquired while serving their countries. It's not like that shit ended with Viet Nam. Unfortunately, quite a few leave the military with some significant 'issues.' In my personal observation, no small percentage deny or minimize their PTSD, rather than inflate it. It appears that the VA is more than happy to also deny or minimize the prevalence and severity of PTSD. But at least two people I happen to love a lot--both of whom are well educated professionals, employed, responsible, productive: well, there are some outbursts and heightened responses to things that those of us who have not served in combat situations usually do not have. Both are self supporting, etc. but both have experienced some significant damage to their personal relationships. Note: these are both people who have loving families and friends who are effective as a support system. This is not the case for a lot of vets (or people in general).

There is a lot of overlap in vets with PTSD and individuals with mental illness in general and those who abuse drugs and/or alcohol. A lot of addicts are self-medicating. We still do not have easy access to mental health services for everyone or even most people. Treatment is not always effective and often not immediately effective but requires multiple attempts at different therapies, some of which have some pretty awful side effects. None of this is cheap or easy. And of course, there's still the stigma.

What does it say about us as a society when we have much much much easier access to street drugs and alcohol than we do to effective treatment for PTSD, depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, etc? There's no big surprise that some treat their disorders (which may not have been identified or diagnosed or even recognized) by using and abusing various substances.

Yes, there was a sea change in thought about treatment for mental illnesses. For many years, those with mental illness (and sometimes, just those who were very inconvenient) were institutionalized against their will. A lot of things have changed: treatments available and society's acceptance of people with disabilities. Those with Downs, for example, used to be institutionalized and now are most often raised by parents, educated in publicly funded schools and attend job training programs and often live independently, working and supporting themselves. Previously such individuals, along with individuals with many, many types of disabilities were locked up in 'insane asylums' along with people with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorders, etc.

We have also come a long way with regards to how we view mental illness. MOST of us, but unfortunately, not ALL of us no longer see mental illness as a character flaw but as something that can and should be treated, and individuals can and should be supported in their efforts to overcome their illness or learn to live productively despite the illness.

There was a big push to de-institutionalize individuals in all categories. There has also been a movement towards patients' rights, which include the right to refuse treatment. It sounds insane, of course, to refuse treatment which could control your schizophrenia but those medications do not work perfectly and do not come without some profound and debilitating side effects. And then there is the fact that at least some individuals with some serious mental illnesses believe they are cured when their meds become very effective so they want to go off their meds, at which point their schizophrenia reasserts itself. I am just sticking with one serious illness here but it applies to multiple disorders.

Generally speaking, as a society, we do not believe that we should force people to take psychotropic drugs, even if we believe it is for their own good. I agree with this but it does create a paradox: what does one do when there is someone who clearly needs treatment, who is sabotaging their own lives, who may be a danger to him/herself and/or others and who does not or cannot or will not see that they need help? Most states only allow a 72 hr involuntary psych hold, including for alcohol and drug abuse. This isn't enough time to stabilize so that the individual can recognize their need for help. Of course assuming there are beds or appointments and money to pay for such.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Here you've got it wrong. Charity never has a meaningful answer, there's simply not enough of it. Government help isn't good but it's the best answer we have.

The problem with government aid is we try so hard to avoid paying any more than we must that we end up making it extremely hard to climb out. That doesn't change the underlying problem that most such things are self-inflicted.

 

[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.

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.

I have no problem with helping the disabled and in fact I think we should help them more. SSI/SSDI is a different issue than welfare.

 

[maxparrish]

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Immigration and poverty are linked. Other than that, I can't make out much more of your post. I can't see the forest for the HATE

 

[maxparrish]

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Immigration and poverty are linked. Other than that, I can't make out much more of your post. I can't see the forest for the HATE

You mean you can't resolve the two conflicting narratives often promoted on the left? Or is it because Obama will be officially adding to the poor, to add to the underclass that the left supposedly wants to eliminate?

Either a person puts poor Americans ahead of the foreign poor when it comes to our handouts of limited resources, or they do not. The American poor come first in my book, how about you?

 

[J842P]

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

And not even off the first page and these very arguments are used in the thread

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

So much treachery in the world, you can't even trust bums on the street to be bums, to be the deserving poor.

Poor folk need to rid their ranks of the undeserving poor, purge them all, then we, the final arbitors, of who is and is not poor can in good conscience help the oh so few people left, the deserving poor.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to pigeonhole me into your narrative. I said nothing with regards to deserving or undeserving.

 

[J842P]

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Your hate is clouding your reasoning skills, which are usually pretty good.

 

[J842P]

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Immigration and poverty are linked. Other than that, I can't make out much more of your post. I can't see the forest for the HATE

You mean you can't resolve the two conflicting narratives often promoted on the left? Or is it because Obama will be officially adding to the poor, to add to the underclass that the left supposedly wants to eliminate?

Either a person puts poor Americans ahead of the foreign poor when it comes to our handouts of limited resources, or they do not. The American poor come first in my book, how about you?

There is nothing to reconcile. "The left" doesn't want to get red of the absolute number of poor people for the sake of making America "poverty free," it wants to help people in poverty.

If your characterization were correct, then the left could easily say to just deport all people below a certain income level and voilà! No more poverty in America.

Also, your no-nothing nativism is hardly a surprise, but it also hardly seems to be relevant.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

You mean like the limits on "welfare" or that in my locality, the homeless are literally transported into the next county instead of being dealt with here?

 

[maxparrish]

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Immigration and poverty are linked. Other than that, I can't make out much more of your post. I can't see the forest for the HATE

You mean you can't resolve the two conflicting narratives often promoted on the left? Or is it because Obama will be officially adding to the poor, to add to the underclass that the left supposedly wants to eliminate?

Either a person puts poor Americans ahead of the foreign poor when it comes to our handouts of limited resources, or they do not. The American poor come first in my book, how about you?

There is nothing to reconcile. "The left" doesn't want to get red of the absolute number of poor people for the sake of making America "poverty free," it wants to help people in poverty.

If your characterization were correct, then the left could easily say to just deport all people below a certain income level and voilà! No more poverty in America.

Also, your no-nothing nativism is hardly a surprise, but it also hardly seems to be relevant.

My characterization(s) are of possible left narratives. I am not presuming neither the left or right wants to deport all people who are poor I am noting that the left has several possible goals:

1. Mitigate existing poverty of Americans through the public (deficit ridden) treasury.
2. Mitigate AND reduce the numbers of poor Americans through the public treasury.
3. Reduce the numbers of world's poor through the public treasury.
4. Maintain or increase the number of the underclass by importing poverty and those without skills, education, and/or abilities.

It is a fact that if you spend a dollar for X, it is a dollar not available for Y. Hence you have two choices: either make X your priority and spend a dollar on him/her, or spend 50 cents for X and 50 cents for Y.

If you wish to mitigate or eliminate poverty in America, for Americans, it is irrational to import tens of millions of more poor. If, however, you want to 'spread the welfare wealth around' and you think the world's poor have an equal claim on American public monies, equal to that of the historic underclass of African-Americans and poor whites, then you sacrifice American poor for the "greater good".

In other words, you would rather spend only 50 cents for Americans, so as to give the other 50 cents to 'migrating' Laotians, Samoans, Bulgarians, Pakistanis, and Hondurans.

I would rather take the full dollar and spend it for our American poor and our historic minorities (African Americans, American Indians, etc.).

If it is "nativitist" and hateful to desire to fully help our own as a priority RATHER than import tens of millions of Bulgarians and Russians and Laotians to siphon off that help then I plead guilty. Americans do come first in my book, including our poor Americans.

So then, why do you hate poor Americans? Why do you hate urban black people and American Indians? Why don't they have a priority on our tax monies? Why shouldn't we meet the needs of our own first, and foremost?

 

[bilby]

There is a bit of surrealness to this thread, in light of recent and pending events. For fifty years we have been importing 10s of millions of poor individuals under the pretext that this is "good" for them and for us. In the meantime, we talk about the "poor" as your Daddy's 1960s intergenerational underclass...as if immigrants don't make up a large portion of those poor.

And soon Obama will give us 5 to 30 million new "officially legal" foreign citizens, almost all poor, ready to submit their new claims on the citizenry. Might someone explain how we can have two conflicting narratives? In one narrative poverty is a bad thing, an intergenerational curse upon the all-American underclass who lacks skills and opportunity. In another narrative it is a good thing, we ought to add to that underclass by importing the 10s of millions without skills...because we treat the poor SO BAD, they are screaming to get in?

And all the while, we getting complaints that we don't have enough public resources for CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZEN poor, so let's import MORE?

Immigration and poverty are linked. Other than that, I can't make out much more of your post. I can't see the forest for the HATE

You mean you can't resolve the two conflicting narratives often promoted on the left? Or is it because Obama will be officially adding to the poor, to add to the underclass that the left supposedly wants to eliminate?

Either a person puts poor Americans ahead of the foreign poor when it comes to our handouts of limited resources, or they do not. The American poor come first in my book, how about you?

There is nothing to reconcile. "The left" doesn't want to get red of the absolute number of poor people for the sake of making America "poverty free," it wants to help people in poverty.

If your characterization were correct, then the left could easily say to just deport all people below a certain income level and voilà! No more poverty in America.

Also, your no-nothing nativism is hardly a surprise, but it also hardly seems to be relevant.

My characterization(s) are of possible left narratives. I am not presuming neither the left or right wants to deport all people who are poor I am noting that the left has several possible goals:

1. Mitigate existing poverty of Americans through the public (deficit ridden) treasury.
2. Mitigate AND reduce the numbers of poor Americans through the public treasury.
3. Reduce the numbers of world's poor through the public treasury.
4. Maintain or increase the number of the underclass by importing poverty and those without skills, education, and/or abilities.

It is a fact that if you spend a dollar for X, it is a dollar not available for Y. Hence you have two choices: either make X your priority and spend a dollar on him/her, or spend 50 cents for X and 50 cents for Y.

If you wish to mitigate or eliminate poverty in America, for Americans, it is irrational to import tens of millions of more poor. If, however, you want to 'spread the welfare wealth around' and you think the world's poor have an equal claim on American public monies, equal to that of the historic underclass of African-Americans and poor whites, then you sacrifice American poor for the "greater good".

In other words, you would rather spend only 50 cents for Americans, so as to give the other 50 cents to 'migrating' Laotians, Samoans, Bulgarians, Pakistanis, and Hondurans.

I would rather take the full dollar and spend it for our American poor and our historic minorities (African Americans, American Indians, etc.).

If it is "nativitist" and hateful to desire to fully help our own as a priority RATHER than import tens of millions of Bulgarians and Russians and Laotians to siphon off that help then I plead guilty. Americans do come first in my book, including our poor Americans.

So then, why do you hate poor Americans? Why do you hate urban black people and American Indians? Why don't they have a priority on our tax monies? Why shouldn't we meet the needs of our own first, and foremost?

Why is a poor American 'your own', while a poor Mexican is not? If your location info here is correct, you live a lot closer to poor Mexicans than you do to poor New Yorkers; Why are New Yorkers more deserving of your help than Mexicans? Why limit your compassion to the US, rather than limiting it to California; or to San Francisco; or to your street; or your building? Why extend your compassion only to the borders of the USA, and not to the NAFTA countries; or all of the Americas; or the whole world?

You choice of scale is completely arbitrary, and yet you treat it as though it was of fundamental significance. Why is that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And not even off the first page and these very arguments are used in the thread

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

So much treachery in the world, you can't even trust bums on the street to be bums, to be the deserving poor.

Poor folk need to rid their ranks of the undeserving poor, purge them all, then we, the final arbitors, of who is and is not poor can in good conscience help the oh so few people left, the deserving poor.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to pigeonhole me into your narrative. I said nothing with regards to deserving or undeserving.

Nor did I. Not unless you equate people pretending to be poor with people who actually are.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

1. Single moms are the problem. Only 9 percent of low-income, urban moms have been single throughout their child's first five years. Thirty-five percent were married to, or in a relationship with, the child's father for that entire time.*

2. Absent dads are the problem. Sixty percent of low-income dads see at least one of their children daily. Another 16 percent see their children weekly.*

3. Black dads are the problem. Among men who don't live with their children, black fathers are more likely than white or Hispanic dads to have a daily presence in their kids' lives.

4. Poor people are lazy. In 2004, there was at least one adult with a job in 60 percent of families on food stamps that had both kids and a nondisabled, working-age adult.

5. If you're not officially poor, you're doing okay. The federal poverty line for a family of two parents and two children in 2012 was $23,283. Basic needs cost at least twice that in 615 of America's cities and regions.

6. Go to college, get out of poverty. In 2012, about 1.1 million people who made less than $25,000 a year, worked full time, and were heads of household had a bachelor's degree.**

7. We're winning the war on poverty. The number of households with children living on less than $2 a day per person has grown 160 percent since 1996, to 1.65 million families in 2011.

8. The days of old ladies eating cat food are over. The share of elderly single women living in extreme poverty jumped 31 percent from 2011 to 2012.

9. The homeless are drunk street people. One in 45 kids in the United States experiences homelessness each year. In New York City alone, 22,000 children are homeless.

10. Handouts are bankrupting us. In 2012, total welfare funding was 0.47 percent of the federal budget.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/10-poverty-myths-busted

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And not even off the first page and these very arguments are used in the thread

I thought that a large proportion of the chronically homeless population came from the effects of "deinstitutionalization" and the closing of public mental health asylums (i.e. "looney bins"). Although many of these institutions had pretty horrific conditions, the solution was simply to shut them down and release the former patients "into the wild." That and the returning veterans from the Vietnam war who suffered from untreated PTSD were essentially left to fend for themselves in a state where they could not reintegrate into society. Add to that hard drug addicts and that essentially seems to explain the majority of the homeless population that I see.

Indeed, the younger homeless I see tend to be either drug addicts or not obviously drug-addicted males who more often than not claim to be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, undoubtedly some percentage of those guys are lying about their veteran status.

That is absolutely the case here in Ontario. We have an extensive safety net, and if you truly need help, it is there. But if you are mentally ill, and can't find your way to this help, that will put you on the street. The vast majority of our homeless (the real homeless - we have more fakers panhandling than real) are mentally ill, and it can be traced directly back to the "deinstitutionalization" you speak of.

So much treachery in the world, you can't even trust bums on the street to be bums, to be the deserving poor.

Poor folk need to rid their ranks of the undeserving poor, purge them all, then we, the final arbitors, of who is and is not poor can in good conscience help the oh so few people left, the deserving poor.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to pigeonhole me into your narrative. I said nothing with regards to deserving or undeserving.

Nor did I. Not unless you equate people pretending to be poor with people who actually are.

Your words

If you don't like what they read like, choose better