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

[laughing dog]

The entire point of that example is that they could not afford those things.
And the reason you are linking the "frivilous" poor here with 3rd world children dying of disease and malnutrition is...?

Because AA is defending them and has suggested that their public assistance should be increased. Have you been following her posts? The link is in regards to better uses for tax funds, with the third world poor just being one possibility far more deserving compared to a low income household who wants a pair of brand name shoes and is disgusted by those filthy brands at Payless ShoeSource.

Ignoring your value judgment about who is more deserving, the probability that federal funds that were not used for welfare in the US would be used to help children abroad is as close to zero as anyone could imagine.

 

[Derec]

Wrong again. Furniture in those RTO stores is way overpriced on the sticker to begin. And i will stand by that I can find that SAME LOVELEAT for $350.00.

Calling BS on that one. The whole point in the article is that they bought a $1500 sofa/loveseat combo that ends up costing them $4000+. Hell, I don't even think you can find a new sofa+loveseat for $350 anyway!
But if it were true it would make my point much more forcefully as it would make the deal so much more stupid.

And if you actually did price comparisons among retail and RTO places, you would know better. But why would you want to know better, when knowing lesser is so much easier?

The high price at RTO places comes from the unfavorable financing. I think your mistake is to accidentally apply that twice.
If you still think you are right show me on an actual product. Otherwise I will take the WaPo article at its face value that they were buying $1500 worth of furniture but end up paying $4k+.

All the poor people in America were in this article?

No, the article gives an example. An example that you are very defensive about (like you are about everything) and unable to admit that the family describe therein is in dire straits mostly due to their own poor decisions.

It's not some reason, it's marketing,

I.e. lack of willpower.

it's bad credit,

Who caused that?

it's being treated like shit when you go into a retail store, it's a lot of reasons.

Why are they being "treated like shit" when they go into a retail store?

Back in the day, in my neighborhood we referred to off brand shoes you would pick up at discount store as BOLOS. My bad. I keep forgetting who I'm talking to and how little you know.

How am I supposed to know what people called things in your neighborhood before I was even born? And why would I even want to know something like that?

You don't have children do you?

Not currently. Do you?

So you wouldn't get why a parent would buy a child expensive shoes or even food.

Did you just compare overpriced shoes that nobody really needs with a necessity like food? Putting those two on the same level is a big part of the problem right there.
I mean there are even infant Lebron shoes that cost $60. Shoes that they will grow out of in a very short order. No problem, you can always bronze them and waste even more money.

Part of being an overindulgent parent is sometimes doing without something you need in order to get your child something they want.

FIFY.

And I am telling those marks, I mean, customers that they can do better.

Many of them can't. At least not yet.

And yet that's what communities around the nation are doing.

Communities are often misusing power of government to get rid of businesses they do not like. A popular strip club around here is being attacked harassed by the new City of Brookhaven simply because a councilwoman hates strip clubs and wants to shut it down.

No, you go read

Not until you read the WaPo story.

 

[Axulus]

Because AA is defending them and has suggested that their public assistance should be increased. Have you been following her posts? The link is in regards to better uses for tax funds, with the third world poor just being one possibility far more deserving compared to a low income household who wants a pair of brand name shoes and is disgusted by those filthy brands at Payless ShoeSource.

Ignoring your value judgment about who is more deserving, the probability that federal funds that were not used for welfare in the US would be used to help children abroad is as close to zero as anyone could imagine.

Doesn't matter, we are talking about priorities here. Public support for increasing welfare for people who blow their funds on fancy brand name shoes is also close to zero.

 

[lpetrich]

Some people won't be happy unless poor people spend all their waking hours hating themselves for being failures and losers, it seems.

I'm reminded of this scandal. Blogger and writer Greta Christina had some cancer surgery some months back, and she requested some money from her fans to cover expenses. Her fans delivered, and among the things she spent the money on was some shoes that are both dressy and comfortable, shoes that are suitable for her line of work but that won't torture her feet.
Fashion Friday: Dressy Comfortable Shoes, and Thinking Outside the Box by Greta Christina

For months — years, actually — I’ve been on a quest for shoes that are both dressy and comfortable. I had high standards in both departments: I needed the shoes to be dressy enough to look good with dresses and skirts in a professional setting… and I needed them to be comfortable enough to walk in for miles, comfortable enough that I could be on my feet all day in them. And this being me, I was picky about how they looked. I wanted them to be comfortable — but I didn’t want them to look frumpy or boring. I wanted them to be stylish and expressive and interesting.

[...]

On a day-to-day basis, my usual answer to this conundrum has been boots. About which I have already waxed poetic. But boots have a certain sporty, rakish vibe, and in many situations they’re just not right. They’re not dressy enough for many professional settings; they’re often not dressy enough for evening. And they’re definitely not okay when it’s stinking hot.

But she got howls of outrage from people complaining that "their" money was being spent on frivolities:
No, You May Not Have Shoes (Update) by Stephanie Zvan
Comments like

Now all you need to do is tell everyone you have Galactorrhea, grift for donations and buy yourself a nice LV purse.

from commenter "Bob".

Only months after rattling her cancer beggars cup,@gretachristina goes shoe shopping http://t.co/cROPjI0E http://t.co/L6WIT35E #atheismplus
January 4, 2013 6:51 pm via ChoqokReplyRetweetFavorite
@felch_grogan
felch grogan

If you’ve ever had cancer, don’t forget to dress in rags, boys and girls. That includes on the feet.
Remember, e-beg for money when there's a cancer scare then go out and buy some really expensive shoes when you get the ok!
January 4, 2013 6:53 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@reneehendricks
Renee Hendricks

SZ responded

Greta, of course, didn’t actually have cancer and have to have a major organ removed. No, no, no. It was just a “scare”. And buying shoes that constitute an investment in a professional wardrobe is a scandal to leave people speechless.

Even if you think you have some claim on how someone spends their money, the only reason to consider a purchase like this to be frivolous is because it is a woman buying feminine shoes. We don’t get this stupid over safety equipment. We don’t get this silly over uniforms. We certainly don’t get this ridiculous over a good pair of men’s leather shoes that will last several years. Those are expenses.

We only do this over women’s professional clothing. That becomes fashion.

The Absurd Manufactured Shoe Controversy: A Brief Response by Greta Christina

If you donated money to me during my recent cancer fundraiser, and you’re not happy with the fact that I recently spent some money on a somewhat-more-expensive-than-usual pair of dressy comfortable shoes bought largely to be worn in professional settings, I will refund your donation. Email me at greta (at) gretachristina (dot) com, with the email address you used for PayPal and the amount you donated, or with the check number and the amount you donated. When I confirm that you did in fact make a donation, I will refund your money.

Nobody took her up on it and requested a refund. Nobody.

Stephanie Zvan and her commenters have already covered most of the reasons why this is ridiculous. The high points: 1: A pair of well-made comfortable shoes that will last for years, bought largely to be worn in professional settings, is not an extravagant expenditure. 2: Many people who donated said specifically that they wanted me to use some of the money in fun ways that would give me pleasure. 3: In any case, when you donate money to someone, you don’t get to dictate how they spend it. 4: When men spend money on clothing, it’s seen as a legitimate expense; when women spend money on clothing, it’s seen as frivolous fashion.

I just have one important point to add to what she said.

Given that I am now working again, and am earning my own income again… at what point is it okay for me to start spending my money the way I want to?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The undeserving poor is a trope used to say that public money should not go to any poor.

Notice there is seldom to never pages upon pages of conservatives saying that money should be increased to the deserving poor. Usually an example of waste and/or fraud perpetrated by either the very dumb or very evil undeserving poor, and that example is used as indicative of the much larger problem of the undeserving poor and the futility of public services to the poor. The idea being here are always more undeserving poor than deserving.

The Conservative will then argue that hard work is the best welfare program. So the poor should get a job. Now these same conservative who promise that a job will lift the poor into the middle class, will also argue (usually in another venue) that the minimum wage is evil and benefits too much of a burden on employers and that the poor should be allowed to negotiate down they wage price in order to attract employment. Because as we all know, sub poverty wages lift all boats. That's how all those self made billionaires make their stash, $2.36 per hour.

Now every now and then, a conservative will stop complaining about the poor and volunteer to do something more than dish up the stuffing at the Thanksgiving soup kitchen they do at the church.



We lose more conservatives that way.

 

[lpetrich]

Who put you in charge? Just exactly how bad are people who can barely keep a roof over their head supposed to feel about accepting a nice pair of sneakers for their kid or for themselves?

I get to judge it when they are buying it on my dime, which is the entire proposal of AA and others for those in "poverty".

Axulus, why do you feel so wounded? Yes, wounded.

Who put you in charge? Just exactly how bad are people who can barely keep a roof over their head supposed to feel about accepting a nice pair of sneakers for their kid or for themselves?

1) Most of these things aren't gifts.

[Citation needed]

2) If they are gifts the gift-giver is a moron. They should be giving them something they actually need.

Loren Pechtel, that's a very sore-loser sort of complaint. First, you complain about such things being financed with your tax dollars, and when they are not, you keep on complaining even though your previous argument states that it is wrong to complain about it.

A simple test: Again and again I see people using food stamps to buy overpriced food. That's not gifts, that's not getting it cheap.

Define "overpriced".

Why not join these alleged aristocrats? Yes, aristocrats.

Try this on for size:
US wool and mohair subsidies: Articles by Jonathan Rauch: <b>Wool and Mohair: The Golden Fleece</b>
Tax breaks for yachts: Yachts As A Tax Deduction | Sailboats & Yachts for Sale - San Diego, LA, Newport and San Francisco Bay
Tax breaks for horses: Bill Would Extend Equine Industry Tax Benefit | BloodHorse.com
Are such government giveaways OK because it's not poor people who receive them?

 

[Axulus]

I get to judge it when they are buying it on my dime, which is the entire proposal of AA and others for those in "poverty".

Axulus, why do you feel so wounded? Yes, wounded.

In what why is it "wounded" to respond to a question I was asked?

 

[Axulus]

lpetrich, are you suggesting we increase public assistance amounts for low income individuals or families who spend their money on $200 pairs of shoes? If not, what is the connection to the discussion at hand with the Greta Christina "controversy"? As I've already stated several times in this thread, once the money is rightfully yours, you can spend it how you wish. However, your situation and the way the money is spent is relevant if you or your supporters are _demanding_ I give you more money. Do I not get to have a say in how my own money (taxes) gets spent (how it is used by the government)? Why do I not get the same courtesy that you and Athena so freely give to those on public assistance or receiving donations? Why do you and her get to judge me on how I want that money spent?

 

[Toni]

lpetrich, are you suggesting we increase public assistance amounts for low income individuals or families who spend their money on $200 pairs of shoes? If not, what is the connection to the discussion at hand with the Greta Christina "controversy"? As I've already stated several times in this thread, once the money is rightfully yours, you can spend it how you wish. However, your situation and the way the money is spent is relevant if you or your supporters are _demanding_ I give you more money. Do I not get to have a say in how my own money (taxes) gets spent (how it is used by the government)? Why do I not get the same courtesy that you and Athena so freely give to those on public assistance or receiving donations? Why do you and her get to judge me on how I want that money spent?

You seem to be the one who is being all judge-y here.

Do you similarly trace down and pass judgment on other recipients of public largess? Do you realize that we are ALL recipients of public support in some form? That this is the point of a society? To provide support that cannot be achieved on an individual basis?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The sore spot isn't about whose dime is paying for what. It's about morality zealots determining what is right and righteous for someone else.

Every Christmas, my mom would make my dad do one day of shopping with us. It was a family outing sort of thing and he was not allowed to hide the Craftsman's department at the Sears. He had to walk with us as a family. For this sacrifice of a day, he got a free day fishing with his friends and Momma couldn't say a word about what was or was not caught or how much alcohol was consumed.

These trips, for the most part, were fun but within them came their own peculiar argument. It went something like this.

There would be a sidewalk Santa/Salvation army bell ringer on a given corner. Momma would get out her change purse and drop some coins in the kettle. "Merry Christmas ma'am." "And a Merry Christmas to you too and a Happy New Year."

After the third time Momma opened her change purse, Poppa would say, "You know they put winos out here to ring those bells. He's just gonna take that money and get drunk. You would do more good putting that money down a rat hole. At least the rat will do something constructive with it like make a nest."

My mom's answer was classic.

"First of all, it's my money. I pull the same forty you do, I wear a badge like you do and I carry a gun like you do. So I will do what i damn well please the money I earn. Second, I gave the money from my heart. It satisfies me to do so. Now what he does with the money after I give it, is between him and his God. The reason I give it is between me and mine."

We give to others, not just to help them but because of the kind of people we are. And that is true whether it is charity, taxes, or birthday bonds. What we give is not just about the need of the recipient, but an expression of what type of people we are. Now don't me wrong. If my father knew you, he would give you the shirt off his back to help you. But strangers were not his cup of tea. And walking a beat in DC for over twenty years, he had just seen too many hustlers and con artists to truck too much of time with anyone purely on spec.

My mother did her policing at the Postal Training and Development Institute in Bethesda MD, where they trained postal inspectors and post masters. She spent her time with instructors, students, and administrators. A Different Vibe all together. I get that. I also get that my Momma was right.

I choose for her to be right. I admit that. I, like her, choose to work for and live in a world where I trust. And yes, I get hurt. But I would rather trust and get hurt than live a life of fear and loathing and lonliness.

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring your value judgment about who is more deserving, the probability that federal funds that were not used for welfare in the US would be used to help children abroad is as close to zero as anyone could imagine.

Doesn't matter, we are talking about priorities here.

Of course it matters. Your comparison is based on something that is not possible at this time.

Public support for increasing welfare for people who blow their funds on fancy brand name shoes is also close to zero.

No, we are talking about increasing "welfare" support for poor people. You and a few others are imposing the value judgments on who ought to get such funds. What is truly interesting is that these moralistic judgments tend to come from posters who otherwise appear to endorse a more laissez faire attitude in many other economic spheres. But talk about the poor, and all of a sudden, that disappears.

 

[Axulus]

lpetrich, are you suggesting we increase public assistance amounts for low income individuals or families who spend their money on $200 pairs of shoes? If not, what is the connection to the discussion at hand with the Greta Christina "controversy"? As I've already stated several times in this thread, once the money is rightfully yours, you can spend it how you wish. However, your situation and the way the money is spent is relevant if you or your supporters are _demanding_ I give you more money. Do I not get to have a say in how my own money (taxes) gets spent (how it is used by the government)? Why do I not get the same courtesy that you and Athena so freely give to those on public assistance or receiving donations? Why do you and her get to judge me on how I want that money spent?

You seem to be the one who is being all judge-y here.

Do you similarly trace down and pass judgment on other recipients of public largess? Do you realize that we are ALL recipients of public support in some form? That this is the point of a society? To provide support that cannot be achieved on an individual basis?

When we are discussing who should receive public assistance and who shouldn't and also how much, we all become the judge. There is no way around it. I draw the line at the necessities for survivial - clothing, housing, medical care, education for children, utilities. Beyond that, there are much _better_ uses for the limited amount of money. Do we really live in such a utopia that we should be blowing our money so that some can have fancy shoes or furniture?

 

[Axulus]

Doesn't matter, we are talking about priorities here.

Of course it matters. Your comparison is based on something that is not possible at this time.

Public support for increasing welfare for people who blow their funds on fancy brand name shoes is also close to zero.

No, we are talking about increasing "welfare" support for poor people. You and a few others are imposing the value judgments on who ought to get such funds. What is truly interesting is that these moralistic judgments tend to come from posters who otherwise appear to endorse a more laissez faire attitude in many other economic spheres. But talk about the poor, and all of a sudden, that disappears.

If the poor want to blow $200 on a pair of Air Jordans, they can go for it. Just don't ask me to fund these habits and then saying how dare I judge them when I object to supporting such habits. Do you understand the difference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The sore spot isn't about whose dime is paying for what. It's about morality zealots determining what is right and righteous for someone else.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it matters. Your comparison is based on something that is not possible at this time.

Public support for increasing welfare for people who blow their funds on fancy brand name shoes is also close to zero.

No, we are talking about increasing "welfare" support for poor people. You and a few others are imposing the value judgments on who ought to get such funds. What is truly interesting is that these moralistic judgments tend to come from posters who otherwise appear to endorse a more laissez faire attitude in many other economic spheres. But talk about the poor, and all of a sudden, that disappears.

If the poor want to blow $200 on a pair of Air Jordans, they can go for it. Just don't ask me to fund these habits and then saying how dare I judge them when I object to supporting such habits. Do you understand the difference.

Responsibility is only something for the rich.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it matters. Your comparison is based on something that is not possible at this time.

Public support for increasing welfare for people who blow their funds on fancy brand name shoes is also close to zero.

No, we are talking about increasing "welfare" support for poor people. You and a few others are imposing the value judgments on who ought to get such funds. What is truly interesting is that these moralistic judgments tend to come from posters who otherwise appear to endorse a more laissez faire attitude in many other economic spheres. But talk about the poor, and all of a sudden, that disappears.

If the poor want to blow $200 on a pair of Air Jordans, they can go for it. Just don't ask me to fund these habits and then saying how dare I judge them when I object to supporting such habits. Do you understand the difference.

I understand the difference. Just don't ask me to support it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF /ˈtænɨf/) is one of the United States of America's federal assistance programs. It began on July 1, 1996, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services.[2] This cash benefit is often referred to simply as "welfare".

TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996. The Act provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to get people off of that assistance, primarily through employment. There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods.[3] The reform granted states wide discretion of how to distribute TANF entitlements. States also have the authority to eliminate payments to recipients altogether. Under the new act, TANF recipients are required to find a job within 24 months of receiving aid.[4] In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household.

 

[lpetrich]

The sore spot isn't about whose dime is paying for what. It's about morality zealots determining what is right and righteous for someone else.

AthenaAwakened, that would explain that Greta Christina scandal where some people were outraged that she used some money given to her to buy some fancy shoes. GC offered to refund any money given to her by such people, but they never took her up on that. They preferred feeling wronged to getting the supposed wrong undone, it seems.

 

[lpetrich]

American deceptionalism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Paul Rosenberg started off by noting United States exceptionalism, and how American revolutionary ideals were (1) very imperfectly applied for a long time and (2) an inspiration for European reformers and revolutionaries. He also noted what seemed to him a condescending attitude toward Occupy Wall Street from some of the US's political class: "You've made your point. Now go to your room and shut up. We've got a lawn to keep up, and you've spoiled it."

He noted that the 19th century had some successful welfare statism, notably universal public education and making large amounts of land available and accessible for at low or zero cost. Admittedly it was all stolen from its previous inhabitants, but that's another story. But industrial-era welfare statism was a different story. Much of the industrial workforce was first Irish, then Central and Southern European, mostly Catholic or Jewish, and these immigrants were perceived as hostile others. Americans have been curiously reluctant to learn from Europeans' experience, despite being willing to do so with many other things.

PR then notes this interesting bit of research: Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? | The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs After analyzing a variety of factors, the authors conclude that it's inversely correlated with the amount of racial minorities -- higher fractions of minorities means less social and welfare spending. This correlation holds true across nations and across US states:

Nations: Social Spending (% GDP) vs. Racial Fractionalization
US States: Welfare Benefits vs. Black Proportion

Americans have been more likely to consider poor people undeserving lazy bums than Europeans were, and that's because to many Americans, poor people are a hostile other, rather than fellow Americans who have had some misfortune or whatever. Think of all the stereotypes of black people as lazy and criminal and living off of welfare.

Americans don't have much aversion to welfare statism that benefits them, however. This includes the right wing, where the Tea Party is known for an attitude of "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Members of this movement do not object to fellow members sticking their snouts in government troughs -- just to people other than them doing so.

That study also notes various historic and institutional factors that got in the way of US welfare statism, like its being more rural than Europe, being more decentralized, and having political institutions with rather fossilized features, like lack of proportional representation.


Paul Rosenberg then discusses President Obama's rather desperate attempts at constructing a health-care reform package that Republicans might like, only to be rebuffed by them. He concludes with

I've concentrated here on healthcare as a key welfare state component. But the same pattern of delusionary grand bargaining can be seen wherever you care to look. Consider "education reform". "America's schools are failing!" we're told. We have to privatise, voucherise, give parents more choice - that alone can save us.

But none of this is supported by evidence, certainly not the evidence of other countries, whose systems are more centralised and less privatised than those of the United States. The US accounts of nearly half of military spending worldwide. The only folks whose overspending ever came close to us was the Soviet Union, and we sure didn't learn anything from them. On the drug war? Don't even think of thinking about it!

The list could be extended indefinitely. There is not a single area in which Republicans won't condemn anything foreign just for being foreign (unless, for some reason they like it, the way Michele Bachmann likes Chinese slave labour). And there's not a single area where Democrats won't be defensive about thinking outside the box that Republicans have put them in.

As to what the future might hold, it's clear that the United States has been becoming more Europe-like in some ways, like becoming more and more urban. That urbanization had a strange twist in the mid 20th cy., when lots of blacks moved to cities and many whites fled them for the suburbs. Instead of the recent European pattern of rich center and poor periphery, what resulted was poor center and rich periphery. But over the last few decades, gentrifiers have been at work on many urban neighborhoods, and some suburbs have become slums, thus moving toward the European pattern.

Also, racial divisions have been weakening, with Americans becoming more racially tolerant. We still have a way to go, but we've come a remarkable way from the days when Southern politicians would defend lynchings of black people as justified for their heinous crimes.

So I think that the US will become more and more Europe-like as time goes on, and that will likely move its politics in a more social-democratic direction.


Considering the question of whether the discrepancies are due to states' different wealths, I found:

Max AFDC payment/month = -149(72) - 6.92(1.31) * (percent black) + 0.017(0.002) * (median income)

The ()'s enclose the standard deviations. The AFDC numbers were for 1990, to avoid the complications of mid-1990's welfare reform. So even after taking into account different incomes, states with larger fractions of black people pay significantly less welfare.

 

[lpetrich]

Yet more from The dual failure of conservative policy and liberal politics - Opinion - Al Jazeera English.

Toward the end, Paul Rosenberg discusses various sorts of welfare statism. He notes a classic study by Gøsta Esping-Andersen: Esping-Andersen, G.: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism..

Continental Europe has been dominated by a conservative sort of welfare state, pioneered by late 19th cy. German leader Otto von Bismarck. He took the most popular proposals of the Left and used them to strengthen social hierarchies.

The Nordic countries have had a socialist or social-democratic welfare state, one closer to the original intent of those proposals. "Its central thrust was the inclusive welfare of all workers, undergirded by enhanced protections against their reduction to mere commodities in the labour market."

The Anglo-American (19th cy., neo) liberal wefare state goes to the other extreme, using welfare statism only to fix problems that markets seem to have trouble with.

Paul Rosenberg then notes evidence that the Anglo-American model is less efficient than the others, and that the US version is especially bad.

Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective (PDF)
"Government Programmes and Social Outcomes: The United States in Comparative Perspective"
The US is only about 1/4 to 1/2 as efficient as other Anglo and Northern European countries. It does reasonably well with old people, but terribly with children.

This is partly due to many old people being better better-organized to lobby than many parents of young children. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" and the like. Also due to the perception of welfare beneficiaries as hostile others instead of as fellow Americans.