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

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Look at the implications of the "rebuttal" to #1--the majority weren't with the father.

#2 is also weak--"one of" their children--they likely have more than one. He probably sees the child with his current partner, not with any past partners.

#3 is also a distortion--note the qualifier "who don't live with their children".

#4 in other words, at least 40% were unemployed.

#5 Some support for those figures would be good. $46k/yr for a family of 4? Sure, there are some places that's true but those are high wage or resort areas. Nothing says you have to live there.

#6 That's the current fuck-up, not normal.

#7 really needs some indication of their yardstick.

Likewise, #8 needs to define it's yardstick.

#9 is not a rebuttal--when the parents fuck up the kids often suffer. The existence of homeless children is more a condemnation of CPS than proof the parents aren't fucked up.

#10 clearly has a yardstick problem.


This article would make a good exhibit for a how-to-lie-with-statistics course. It's not useful information, though. Given the blatant problems with some of the "facts" I see no reason to think the yardsticks in some of the others are honest.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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

Look at the implications of the "rebuttal" to #1--the majority weren't with the father.

#2 is also weak--"one of" their children--they likely have more than one. He probably sees the child with his current partner, not with any past partners.

#3 is also a distortion--note the qualifier "who don't live with their children".

#4 in other words, at least 40% were unemployed.

#5 Some support for those figures would be good. $46k/yr for a family of 4? Sure, there are some places that's true but those are high wage or resort areas. Nothing says you have to live there.

#6 That's the current fuck-up, not normal.

#7 really needs some indication of their yardstick.

Likewise, #8 needs to define it's yardstick.

#9 is not a rebuttal--when the parents fuck up the kids often suffer. The existence of homeless children is more a condemnation of CPS than proof the parents aren't fucked up.

#10 clearly has a yardstick problem.


This article would make a good exhibit for a how-to-lie-with-statistics course. It's not useful information, though. Given the blatant problems with some of the "facts" I see no reason to think the yardsticks in some of the others are honest.

Habitually, You don't provide links or sources or yardsticks, nor do you research rebuttals. You make assertions.

So once again your opinion and $2...

 

[Toni]

Look at the implications of the "rebuttal" to #1--the majority weren't with the father.

#2 is also weak--"one of" their children--they likely have more than one. He probably sees the child with his current partner, not with any past partners.

#3 is also a distortion--note the qualifier "who don't live with their children".

#4 in other words, at least 40% were unemployed.

#5 Some support for those figures would be good. $46k/yr for a family of 4? Sure, there are some places that's true but those are high wage or resort areas. Nothing says you have to live there.

#6 That's the current fuck-up, not normal.

#7 really needs some indication of their yardstick.

Likewise, #8 needs to define it's yardstick.

#9 is not a rebuttal--when the parents fuck up the kids often suffer. The existence of homeless children is more a condemnation of CPS than proof the parents aren't fucked up.

#10 clearly has a yardstick problem.


This article would make a good exhibit for a how-to-lie-with-statistics course. It's not useful information, though. Given the blatant problems with some of the "facts" I see no reason to think the yardsticks in some of the others are honest.

Habitually, You don't provide links or sources or yardsticks, nor do you research rebuttals. You make assertions.

So once again your opinion and $2...

Would support someone living in abject poverty better than they are currently supported. Minus Loren's judgmental opinion, that is. With the opinion, I'm not sure it would be a net increase..

 

[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?

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?

What is arbitrary is your assumption about what is actually my choice of scale - who, other than you, assumes that "my own" is based on the number of statute miles from my residence?

"My own" are those that I identify with, those who share a community of local, state, and national interest, who often share my values, who have meaning to me and my life. As an American I identify with others who typically call themselves American, who have shared a civic and national culture for most or all of our lives. We are a part of the American experience, meaning we see our lives more connected to those in New York or Portland or St. Louis than we do to those Ankara, Tegucigalpa, or Timbuktu.

As I have no choice about who I give my welfare tax dollars to, and because it is a communal choice of the American people, I think we (HORRORS) ought to spend it on us first. I'd rather help pay for the education of a kid from Detroit than fund a Bulgarian.

So I ask again, why do you hate the American poor?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Y'all do know that all the those brown people south of the Texas border are Americans too, right?

 

[RavenSky]

"poverty"--a condition where people ensure they handle things poorly and ensure they will continue to have a lack of money.

Bullshit

Poverty: the state of being extremely poor

Just the fact that you word attempt to refine the word as you did shows how biased and inhuman (yes, I spelled it exactly the way I meant it) your position is.

 

[RavenSky]

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.”

This is the part that boggles my mind more than anything else...

On the one hand we have people like Axulus insisting that all the ills can be cured by private charity, but on the other - when people try to do exactly that, they are arrested and stopped. The just arrested a 90-year old WWII vet because he was feeding the homeless people.

There is absolutely no way any of these people will be able to convince me that they aren't waging a war ON THE POOR - the culture of cruelty you refer to in the OP

 

[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?

What is arbitrary is your assumption about what is actually my choice of scale - who, other than you, assumes that "my own" is based on the number of statute miles from my residence?

"My own" are those that I identify with, those who share a community of local, state, and national interest, who often share my values, who have meaning to me and my life. As an American I identify with others who typically call themselves American, who have shared a civic and national culture for most or all of our lives. We are a part of the American experience, meaning we see our lives more connected to those in New York or Portland or St. Louis than we do to those Ankara, Tegucigalpa, or Timbuktu.

As I have no choice about who I give my welfare tax dollars to, and because it is a communal choice of the American people, I think we (HORRORS) ought to spend it on us first. I'd rather help pay for the education of a kid from Detroit than fund a Bulgarian.

So I ask again, why do you hate the American poor?

I don't assume that that "my own" is based on the number of statute miles from your residence; I am pointing out that that would be no less insane than basing it on nationality - and may well be more sane as a criterion than allowing arbitrary lines on a map to dictate your definition.

Why do you imagine that the American experience is different in some important way from non-American experiences? Do you really think that a white middle-class San Franciscan man has more in common with a black working-class woman in Detroit, than he has in common with a white middle-class male Londoner, or Parisian, or Sydneysider? The only significant difference between the Londoner and the San Franciscan is the colour of their passports. Why is nationality your criterion, rather than something more tangible such as race, social class, hair colour, height, marital status, sexuality, or wealth? Is this just a product of being brainwashed by too many recitals of your pledge of allegiance? It would be stupid to care only (or even mostly) about people who share your eye colour; Why is it not equally stupid to care only (or even mostly) about people who share your nationality?

I don't hate the American poor. I have never had an opportunity to form any real opinion of any of them - they can't afford to come here, and I haven't been there for long enough to have any significant interactions with them.

 

[Axulus]

On the one hand we have people like Axulus insisting that all the ills can be cured by private charity,

[citation needed]

 

[Underseer]

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.

Ever since His Holiness Reagan, we have deliberately established economic policies designed to increase the number of poor people so that rich people can get richer, so naturally we should blame the poor for their state of affairs. After all, when society is increasingly divided between a small number of people who get richer and richer and everyone else gets poorer, it becomes all the more important that people choose to be rich instead of choosing to be poor, right?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Well, Loren if that is true, no job can help a person in poverty. No public assistance either. Such a person could earn or be handed a thousand dollars a day and because poverty is a mental state, that person would still be in poverty. Conversely, if the mental state were cured, then no matter how little money a person had, they would not be in poverty. A person could then spend the rest of his or her life living on ten dollars a day and still not be in poverty since poverty is in the head.

Untouchables living in India on two dollars a day don't need housing, better sanitation, transportation, healthcare, education, etc. They just need a couple of fifty minute hours a week on a psychiatrist's couch and their poverty will be no more.

 

[Derec]

Untouchables living in India on two dollars a day don't need housing, better sanitation, transportation, healthcare, education, etc. They just need a couple of fifty minute hours a week on a psychiatrist's couch and their poverty will be no more.

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

To make matters worse, those payment trips to Buddy’s put them eye to eye with more temptations. One week, they added a smartphone to their order. Another week, some Samsung speakers. And suddenly, the weekly payments to Buddy’s were $110.

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

To make matters worse, those payment trips to Buddy’s put them eye to eye with more temptations. One week, they added a smartphone to their order. Another week, some Samsung speakers. And suddenly, the weekly payments to Buddy’s were $110.

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

Derec,

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it. All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are. It's not just about renting a sofa, it's about credit laws and wages earned and housing and usury and education, etc. It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

But fight it Derec

Step into the light

 

[Derec]

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

Outlawing them will not solve the problem of people living beyond their means and failing to manage their money.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it.

If they are not satisfied with a cheaper sofa that they can afford with the money they are making what makes you think they would not seek even more expensive stuff if they are just given more money.

All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are.

I am not saying personal irresponsibility is the only cause here, but it is a major cause of poverty in the US. It certainly applies to the Abbots. Why are you so adamant to admit that their problems are largely self-inflicted:
- buying stuff they can't afford
- agreeing to unfavorable rent-to-own terms
- smoking
- dropping out of school and not making efforts to rectify that

It's not just about renting a sofa,

No, it's also about the love seat and the smartphone and the Samsung speakers as well. And the smokes.

it's about credit laws

What credit laws? How would you change them? Force lenders to led to people who are poor repayment risk?

and wages earned

The husband is relatively well paid. She is not working at all, partly because she dropped out of school and finds finding work more challenging.

and housing and usury and education, etc.

Their housing payment is not high and I am guessing their kid attends the local public school.

It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Only they themselves share none of the responsibility, right? It's all somebody else's fault?

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

I do not subscribe to that either. There is place for public programs and assistance (and I am sure the Abbotts receive their share).
That doesn't change the fact that much of the poverty in the US is self-inflicted and this article shows that clearly despite itself.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Outlawing them will not solve the problem of people living beyond their means and failing to manage their money.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it.

If they are not satisfied with a cheaper sofa that they can afford with the money they are making what makes you think they would not seek even more expensive stuff if they are just given more money.

All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are.

I am not saying personal irresponsibility is the only cause here, but it is a major cause of poverty in the US. It certainly applies to the Abbots. Why are you so adamant to admit that their problems are largely self-inflicted:
- buying stuff they can't afford
- agreeing to unfavorable rent-to-own terms
- smoking
- dropping out of school and not making efforts to rectify that

It's not just about renting a sofa,

No, it's also about the love seat and the smartphone and the Samsung speakers as well. And the smokes.

it's about credit laws

What credit laws? How would you change them? Force lenders to led to people who are poor repayment risk?

and wages earned

The husband is relatively well paid. She is not working at all, partly because she dropped out of school and finds finding work more challenging.

and housing and usury and education, etc.

Their housing payment is not high and I am guessing their kid attends the local public school.

It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Only they themselves share none of the responsibility, right? It's all somebody else's fault?

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

I do not subscribe to that either. There is place for public programs and assistance (and I am sure the Abbotts receive their share).
That doesn't change the fact that much of the poverty in the US is self-inflicted and this article shows that clearly despite itself.

Unlike you, I actually teach workshops on economic self defense. I will be teaching one tonight at one of the local Baptist churches.

But no one in that room is going to labor under the impression that poverty can be ended by the thirty people who signed up for class simply making better decisions. These people already make better decisions. Since I started doing these workshops over ten years ago, I have met extraordinary people living in appalling conditions who regularly perform economic miracles. People who manage month after month to squeeze a dollar out of dime.

They don't need you or me to tell them that money is precious or that spending it takes thought. What they need is organization, education, and determination not be targeted as a group as con artist's mark. They need to learn that they have rights and they have power and they have a voice. They need to stop seeing themselves the way the victim blamers do and they need to stop accepting that this is their place and they can't demand better, not just for themselves but for everyone and everyone yet to come.

 

[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.

Ever since His Holiness Reagan, we have deliberately established economic policies designed to increase the number of poor people so that rich people can get richer, so naturally we should blame the poor for their state of affairs. After all, when society is increasingly divided between a small number of people who get richer and richer and everyone else gets poorer, it becomes all the more important that people choose to be rich instead of choosing to be poor, right?

Not all poor people are that way for internal reasons. I even support more aid for the disabled. However, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those whose problems are self-inflicted.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

Derec,

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it. All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are. It's not just about renting a sofa, it's about credit laws and wages earned and housing and usury and education, etc. It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

But fight it Derec

Step into the light

What you are missing is that these people, if they made more would just be piling up credit card debt instead. They wouldn't be living within their means.

 

[arkirk]

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.

This is a gross assumption on your part, Mr. Pechtel...one you really have no right to make. I agree that poor people are more or less bereft of hope and feel unable to make plans for the future. There is al old saw that applies..."it takes money to make money." Your argument rests on the notion that whatever is is deserved by all who experience it. So if you are wealthy, you deserve it. So if you are poor you deserve it. There is nothing motivational in your message. Perhaps you need to realize this about yourself. Your argument is that life and social status are and ought to be static. You seem to have no desire for anything but self interest and believe in nothing else. Are you an Ayn Rand fan too?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Athena, is it your default assumption that everyone who claims to be a victim is an perfectly honest victim incapable of dissembling... and that anyone who is what you consider a "conservative", "right-winger", or "libertarian" is a perfectly deplorable liar incapable of integrity?

 

[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.

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.

Athena, is it your default assumption that everyone who claims to be a victim is an perfectly honest victim incapable of dissembling... and that anyone who is what you consider a "conservative", "right-winger", or "libertarian" is a perfectly deplorable liar incapable of integrity?

No.

 

[Emily Lake]

Athena, is it your default assumption that everyone who claims to be a victim is an perfectly honest victim incapable of dissembling... and that anyone who is what you consider a "conservative", "right-winger", or "libertarian" is a perfectly deplorable liar incapable of integrity?

No.

Then perhaps it might help to allow for the grayness of life in discussion?

There is much in your topics that I find very intriguing, and I would really like to discuss in much more detail - specifically with you. You have experience and knowledge that I think will lend you a perspective that is both unique and educational. But I find your approach to discussion very difficult to engage. You seem to come in "fist swinging" ready for a fight. I understand that there is a lot of history with some posters here. I'm asking you to set that history aside, and focus on the topic that you wish to discuss, and what you wish to accomplish. That way those of us without the history have a small chance of getting in there and getting some learning done before the whole thing self-destructs!