Why so many of the poor remain poor

dyslexia wrote:

In spite of my not being a "libertarian of limited social conscience" I happen to believe that every man, woman and child in this wealthiest of all nations, deserves a modicum of essential services including food, shelter and medical care regardless of the cause of their situation. We shall be known by the way we treat those most in need without judgement.

Thank you, Dys. I certainly agree with that.

There is a component of that, by the way, that allows all of society to profit.

Some of the people for whom a "bare modicum of essential services..." are probably doing a service for productivity in general by being bought off from participating in the production effort.

There are those, no matter how much we might want to deny it, who bring a net negative to productivity when they participate reluctantly.

A QUICK STORY: One of my many, many jobs was as a janitor for a YMCA. I could do a fairly decent clean-up job in about 4 -5 hours -- in fact, pretty much have the place sparkling. Occasionally, one of the local magistrates would send over people who had been sentenced to community service. If I had three or four of them to help me (!) -- the job would take 7 or 8 hours -- and it never looked anywhere near as nice.

The community would have been better off without their "community service."

0 Replies

I certainly agree with that, too, Dys -- a simple and "bottom line" way of putting it!

0 Replies

dys made a good capsulization of what an empathetic individual should believe the authors of the constitution meant by "provide for the general welfare." The revisionists are still at work trying to explain to us all what they meant, once again prooving Louis Latham's characterization of the "anarchic utopian." Read the Federalist's Papers and one will realize that the authors didn't expect the document to remain in it's original state for any more than a hundred years. That's not even considering amendments, just barely over twenty in over two hundred years. Those who want to punish the poor for being the poor should rally for an amendment forbidding any form of government intervention into improving social conditions. Sure, just let the empathetic corporate souls to tackle the problem. (Leaving the area, shaking head and rolling eyes in disbelief of what some people believe).

0 Replies

sweetcomplication wrote:

Cobalt finished with this:

"...So, the others still yet unsheltered for a night? Why of course they are the true derelicts and the scum, right? I know way too many stories of those who sleep in their cars while they work full time, and those that have children and are afraid to go to a shelter for fear their children will be taken from them. The "working poor" is just about the same as those who are "poor" in my book."

AMEN!!!

Why pose the thread from this point of view? Why not pose a question which is not so done, why not focus on: "Why Do the Rich Remain Rich?

I stand by the above post I made earlier in the thread, however, I want to add some appreciation/gratitude especially to Dys for his truly prescient observations (as always) and to Husker for his 'walking the walk' as well as 'talking the talk'; Husker, I am in awe!

0 Replies

So I was driving last night and I pulled up next to an old, rusty, beat up car and inside was 4 people all smoking and eating McDonalds. I was depressed because they were obviously poor. Yet they can eat McDonalds ad smoke...

I don't think anyone is saying that social programs should cease, but they should also not be a way of life. They should exist to help:

A- Those that CAN'T help themselves - like handicapped, etc...
B- Be a helping hand in dire consequences
C- Be a boost to be able to support yourself.

I think many Americans are irresponsible and think that just because they are in America, they deserve something. Where I live there are MANY croation immigrants. They come here, buy into the cheaper homes, fix them up, get jobs and have found a comfortable living. None of them accept public assisstance, but they help each other and the community helps them.

0 Replies

All I could think of was how hard and long I'd have to look into another person's car to determine what the occupants in both the front and back seats were eating/smoking. Gee, McG- weren't you afraid those smoking, Mickey-D's eatin' hooligans might've shot you?

0 Replies

Frank, sounds like community service is a bit like a union....

McG, if you are truly so depressed at seeing people who appear poor to you and are abusing the system, perhaps you should help them out yourself? You would obviously be a good role model for them, and I am sure you could whip them into shape with a few passionate speeches. Mind you, if you don't want to go down that road, then what is with the preoccupation with other people's lives? Truth is, there are ALWAYS people who will take advantage of the system, in any country. I happen to know many Eastern Europeans who work very hard, but also have a few 'shady' dealings going on to make ends more than meet. Oh, and the reason poor people eat McDonald's is because it is cheaper than buying groceries. It is no luxury.

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh, and the reason poor people eat McDonald's is because it is cheaper than buying groceries. It is no luxury.

HAHAHAHAHA!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

All I could think of was how hard and long I'd have to look into another person's car to determine what the occupants in both the front and back seats were eating/smoking. Gee, McG- weren't you afraid those smoking, Mickey-D's eatin' hooligans might've shot you?

WHY CAN'T YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT???????????????

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:
All I could think of was how hard and long I'd have to look into another person's car to determine what the occupants in both the front and back seats were eating/smoking. Gee, McG- weren't you afraid those smoking, Mickey-D's eatin' hooligans might've shot you?

WHY CAN'T YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT???????????????

Poor people? Why, I most certainly was talking about the subject. People who are poor dollar-wise, and others, genuinely poverty-stricken in spirit, and compassion.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Read the Federalist's Papers and one will realize that the authors didn't expect the document to remain in it's original state for any more than a hundred years. That's not even considering amendments, just barely over twenty in over two hundred years. Those who want to punish the poor for being the poor should rally for an amendment forbidding any form of government intervention into improving social conditions. Sure, just let the empathetic corporate souls to tackle the problem. (Leaving the area, shaking head and rolling eyes in disbelief of what some people believe).

Said amendments are the exact mechanism by which the framers intended the Constitution to change with the times. Absent amendment to confer new powers upon the government, those powers do not exist. Again, if you have read them, then you know that the framers did not intend "general welfare" as the catch-all you pretend it to be. (This is not a matter of interpretation.)

And your typical rhetoric suggests what no one has proposed--that "the poor" be punished for being poor. (As an aside, it is liberals who wish to punish people in this country--specifically those who have achieved and created wealth for themselves and others.)

I wish to punish no one. I would hope that as a society we would help all those who need help. The point you keep glossing over in your desire to paint all who disagree with you as haters is that inherent in my desire for all to reap what they sew is a desire to help them, not to hurt them.

0 Replies

I am not entirely sure if MickeyG is in on the McDonalds joke or not....but whatever....with big business closing ranks, i.e. merging, and small business leading the way of the future, I think that those who want to tread their own path independent of handouts will continue to do so. That leaves more for those who do want to make handouts a lifestyle. Natural selection, if you ask me. The only real solution is for the government to reasess how funds are doled out. I am really on neither side of this argument. The government providing services is a good thing, and I think it elevates us as human beings to be doing it. People feeling 'entitled' to it is a whole other issue that points to the personal, not the political.

0 Replies

cav, I know of what you speak; I've heard from friends about their visit to the supermarket, and the person in front of them would buy the best cut of meats with food stamps, while they buy the cheaper stuff. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. c.i.

0 Replies

In another thread that touches on the subject being discussed here, Scrat wrote:

Quote:

If you had done your homework, you would know that the framers explained exactly what "provide for the general welfare" meant: that the powers with which the federal government was to do so were enumerated EXPLICITLY within the Constitution.

I pointed out that she was completely wrong about that.

She has not bothered to respond to what I said or to attempt to back up her statement.

Now here in this thread, she returns to the Constitution and says:

Quote:

Absent amendment to confer new powers upon the government, those powers do not exist.

Fact of the matter is, though, that most amendments to the constitution DO NOT confer new powers upon the government -- and do quite the opposite. They reduce the powers of government -- since most amendments are written in the fashion of the first several -- which, in effect say, "The government SHALL NOT make laws that limit speech, freedom of assembly, establish a religion, prevent practice of a religion, etc.

Almost all of the amendments to the Constitution work in this fashion - telling the government what it is not permitted to do - not giving it new powers. Many of them do contain a passage which allows the legislature to enact laws to enforce the provisions of the specific amendment, but this is not truly granting the government more powers.

Seems like another empty argument.

I wonder if she will attempt to back up what she has said here???

0 Replies

There is one point that I agree with McG on...the power of a community to help each other and better themselves without involving the government. I think our world needs a bit more of that right now, but I am not talking about vigilante-style justice, just people helping each other out.

0 Replies

The power of what community, c.i.? The community I see is the "keeing up with Joneses" community who are by a majority not of the mindset to really congregate a community to do anything more than watch out for burglars.

0 Replies

cav, We do that on a smaller scale. Many nonprofit organizations and charities do good works within the community. The government gets involved to make sure that the fiduciary responsibilities are maintained to benefit the needy people - with some success. c.i.

0 Replies

LW, I think that post was actually directed to my comment. I grew up in a similar 'community.' However, just because many communities look that way does not negate the fact that they have the power to change. You may think I am naive, but as long as somebody is out there trying to change things, there is still hope for everyone. So what is the solution for the Jones's, write them off, or try to educate them? Change never begins with a mob mentality, it starts with an individual, who changes the mob, and every one of us has it within themselves to take on this task, should we choose to. Holy rhetoric, but I still think it is a fact.

0 Replies

Yes, sorry, it was in reply to your comment. What is this "power" to change and exactly who is the motivator of this "power." I believe it is all wishful thinking bordering on the level of fantasy as most people the government to handle it so that don't have to be bothered. There's always a lot of idealistic dreaming in regards to community taking care of their own but it is by-and-large not pragmatic. It's back to the anarchic utopia idea again. Yes, there are church groups who do help out, one of the most successful being the Methodists (and the least prejudicial). They are still plagued with local politics and the politics within their local church. It's just as much of a mishmash if not more so than the government.

0 Replies

LW, it sounds like you are caught in an existential dilemma....actions speak louder than words, but is there really a point? We would just end up substituting one mess for another...

0 Replies

Why so many of the poor remain poor

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know