quote:Threatened cuts to US nutrition programmes will offset all voluntary food donations to the poor this year, according to the authors of a major new report on hunger, who say it is time for charities and church groups to devote more time to political campaigning.
According to a recent government survey, in 2012, due to poverty, an estimated seven million American households struggled to provide enough food. Despite this, a joint committee of Congress is currently meeting to consider welfare cuts of $40bn. An existing $11bn worth of cuts to the food stamps system, known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), began to take effect on 1 November.
On Monday the Bread for the World Institute, a Washington policy group backed by religious charities, published a report entitled Ending Hunger in America. The report proposes a number of responses to the problem, such as measures to promote full employment. The researchers claim that the flurry of voluntary food bank activity which tends to happen around Thanksgiving will be dwarfed by the political impact of cuts, if legislation passed by the House of Representatives is adopted.
“Virtually every church, synagogue and mosque in the country is now gathering up food and distributing, and all of that work that food banks do comes to 5% of the food that needy people get,” said the Bread for the World president, Reverend David Beckmann. “95% comes from school breakfasts, lunches, food stamps and WIC, so Congress can say 'We can cut this programme 5% per cent – no big deal.' But if you cut the national nutrition programmes 5%, you cancel out everything that the charitable system is doing.”
I had no idea charitable giving was such a small proportion of total aid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's because the idea that charity is sufficient to manage 'real poverty concerns' is frequently and aggressively marketed as part and parcel of ideologies that want to get rid of government anti-poverty and anti-hunger systems and/or lower taxes by cutting social programs - there's a long-running fiction that charity matches and accomplishes what government programs do when people are freed from tax burdens
it's always been complete fiction, but there you go.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I had no idea charitable giving was such a small proportion of total aid.
When looking at people's tax deductions for "giving to charity," 1/3 of it tends to be to their churches (the vast majority of which is then spent directly on the church facilities & church members, not charity or outreach - essentially these people get tax deductions for "charitably" donating to themselves), and most of the rest goes to causes and institutions that have little or nothing to do with helping poor people.
I have a real problem with the way these cuts are being framed, here and elsewhere. There were dramatic increases in food aid in 2008-10 (the program expanded by over 50%, or by over $15 billion/year) due to dramatic increases in need because of the recession. These increases are now being rolled back somewhat (only about 10% of the increase is potentially being cut back) as the country continues to recover from the effects of the recession. This is how the increases were initially justified, by saying that they'd be rolled back as the situation improved.
But framing it as "government is cutting food aid dramatically" instead of "temporary increases in food aid are partially ending as the economy improves" is much more likely to evoke strong emotional reactions, so that's what gets the play.
While I applaud the effort to increase aid to the poverty-stricken, I find the tactic both distasteful and ultimately self-defeating, since it provides fodder to conservative claims that the federal government is incapable of trimming social programs, even when the initial plan was to do so. So next time a crisis occurs, Republicans will be even more skeptical about voting for "temporary" benefit increases, because they'll believe they'll simply be cast as heartless b*****ds when it comes time to roll the temporary benefits back.
As to the level of charitable giving, giving by Americans is significantly higher than in Canada or across Europe. The quote above obfuscates a bit by only talking about direct food charity (and even then, I don't really trust the 5% statistic quoted by Rev. Beckman; I'd want to see a more authoritative, less potentially biased source), rather than the significantly higher about of general charity given that likely goes to cover food.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I had no idea charitable giving was such a small proportion of total aid.
When looking at people's tax deductions for "giving to charity," 1/3 of it tends to be to their churches (the vast majority of which is then spent directly on the church facilities & church members, not charity or outreach - essentially these people get tax deductions for "charitably" donating to themselves), and most of the rest goes to causes and institutions that have little or nothing to do with helping poor people.
That's true, although with the caveat that non-trivial portions of charity to churches eventually goes to help the poor. It may not be as high as direct giving to the poor, and certainly some churches are more focused on providing aid and support to the poor than others, but there's some nuance there.
Here's a good breakdown I found on charitable giving in the US:
<edit>Actually now I see your "vast majority" statement. Do you have a link to a breakdown of churches uses of charitable giving?</edit>
<edit>This doesn't really answer my question about the relative disposition of charity within churches, but it suggests that overall about 1/3 of charitable giving in the US goes directly to services to help the poor*:
That's about $100 billion annually (note the stats in the article are for 2005, when total giving was about $225 billion; we're much more generous today, with 2012's total being about $313 billion). So by my calculation, total US charitable giving to the poor is about 75x the proposed cuts from the SNAP program (which, again, are in response to an improving economic picture). That includes lots of non-food support, like educational grants, healthcare, clothing, housing assistance and more, but it paints a somewhat different picture of how much charitable support for the poor is actually occurring.</edit>
*It's not clear from the article, and I haven't looked up the underlying Indiana study, if the "Religious benevolences to the poor" category attempts to capture money given to churches that eventually makes its way to the poor, or if it only includes direct religious gifts to the poor, like donations to the Salvation Army or other religiously-affiliated poverty-focused charities. If the latter, than the 33% estimate could be somewhat lower than the actual amount of charitable giving that goes to aid the poor.
[ December 07, 2013, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
After rereading the Guardian article, I see they're talking about an additional $40 billion (over 10 years), on top of the $11 billion (again, over a decade) already going into effect. If those additional cuts occurred it would be rolling back nearly a third of the overall post-recession increase, instead of just 10% as I stated above. A $5 billion/year cut in food aid would still be, by my rough approximation, less than 1/20 of total charitable giving that goes directly to the poor in the US. It seems unlikely to me that food-focused charitable giving is less than 5% of total charitable giving to the poor, but if so it would support Rev. Beckman's statement that the proposed cuts to food aid are as much as all food-focused charitable giving to the poor.
And, again, I'm generally in favor of increased private and public giving to the poor. I'm just not in favor of dissembling tactics by special interest groups (even one's whose hearts are ostensibly in the right place) and purposefully biased reporting by media outlets.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you might be misrepresenting how government food aid works.
The increases in aid aren't because the government increased the amount each person is allotted, it increased because the total number of people in need increased when the economy tanked. But if you cut benefits like they're discussing, it means people are getting far less per capita then they were getting before. It's not the same thing as waiting for people to get jobs to allow the amount we spend to decrease naturally as the economy improves, it's forcing people to survive with less to make it look like things are better than they really are.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <edit>Actually now I see your "vast majority" statement. Do you have a link to a breakdown of churches uses of charitable giving?</edit> [/QB]
Non-profits, by law, have to publicly report their numbers. Except churches. Here is some survey data on church budgets, from which you can see (first table) the total spent on programs after facilities/administration/etc. is a whopping 14% - and most of THAT is spent on their own church members. Charity going to the community at large might be about 4% of their budgets.
Compare that to real charities: The Red Cross, which people frequently complain wastes a lot of money on administration and overhead, spends 90% of its budget on programs. Direct Relief International spends 98.7% on programs. Directly to the subject of helping the poor, my local food bank spends 91% and the local homeless shelter spends 84%.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you might be misrepresenting how government food aid works.
The increases in aid aren't because the government increased the amount each person is allotted, it increased because the total number of people in need increased when the economy tanked. But if you cut benefits like they're discussing, it means people are getting far less per capita then they were getting before. It's not the same thing as waiting for people to get jobs to allow the amount we spend to decrease naturally as the economy improves, it's forcing people to survive with less to make it look like things are better than they really are.
It's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding how the funds are administered. I had thought that the growth in spending was due partially to an upward definition of the requirements to qualify. I can't find a source for that now, though. If it really is that there's been a constant (w.r.t. inflation) income threshold throughout the crisis and just a massive and persistent increase in need then I'll shame-facedly retract (most of) my righteous outrage.
That said, it's surprising to me that unemployment could drop as much as it has without having an impact on the number of qualifying families. The number of participating households in 2011 and 2012 increased at 2-3x the rate of overall population growth, even as unemployment was decreasing from 9.5% down to less than 8%. Perhaps it's the effect of those who've become discouraged and stopped looking for work?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
I'm not sure how that's a flaw so much as additional information. People in the US give significantly more to charity. People in Europe give that much, plus more, in taxes. Compulsory giving in the form of higher taxes probably decrease Europeans (and Canadians) interest in free-will giving to charities <edit>but definitely provides more food, clothes, housing, etc. to the poor</edit>.
Speaking of taxes, poverty, and inequality, this is an interesting post about the redistributive structures of the tax codes of several OECD countries:
The US total tax burden (which I believe includes state, local, social security, medicare, income, and corporate taxes) is about 30% of GDP. Canada's is about 5% more, Germany and the Netherlands about 5% more than that, and so on. Sweden's tax revenues are about 55% of GDP. The weight of those taxes, however, falls predominantly on the middle class. In fact the US system, because of it's relatively light reliance on a sales tax, is much more progressive, in terms of who bears the tax burden.
[ December 07, 2013, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Just so your aware, federal aid to the lower gives back a returning profit on every dollar spent. Direct infrastructure tends to be about 50 cents on the dollar returned, SNAP and other food aids iirc is about 30 cents on every dollar.
Tax cuts cost money, so it is fiscally responsible to increase aid (as opposed to further economically damaging austerity measures) as it would improve economic growth.
edit: The middle class probably receive the most overall benefits from the welfare state, for example, I as lower middle class get a mostly free University education where I maybe only have to pay back 4000$ at the end.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding how the funds are administered. I had thought that the growth in spending was due partially to an upward definition of the requirements to qualify. I can't find a source for that now, though. If it really is that there's been a constant (w.r.t. inflation) income threshold throughout the crisis and just a massive and persistent increase in need then I'll shame-facedly retract (most of) my righteous outrage. [/QB]
I agree this is the crux of the issue and would like to know what the real explanation is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'm not even sure why it matters, you have an absurd number of people living close to or under the poverty line, and helping them helps reduce drag on the economy; any cuts are bad when there should be increases.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
The figure mentioned in the OP is $11 billion. I'm not sure what that refers to, but if I had to guess, it's the adjusted cost of savings assuming SNAP inflation benefits would equalize some time in FY2015. I think the additional forty billion they want to cut is over ten years, so it it would essentially double the cuts they just made.
Republicans are trying to make you think these cuts will help return benefits to where they were before the recession, but benefit levels returned to pre recession levels on November 1. In reality, another four billion a year in cuts is a hefty slice into pre-recession level SNAP benefits.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
The figure mentioned in the OP is $11 billion. I'm not sure what that refers to, but if I had to guess, it's the adjusted cost of savings assuming SNAP inflation benefits would equalize some time in FY2015. I think the additional forty billion they want to cut is over ten years, so it it would essentially double the cuts they just made.
Republicans are trying to make you think these cuts will help return benefits to where they were before the recession, but benefit levels returned to pre recession levels on November 1. In reality, another four billion a year in cuts is a hefty slice into pre-recession level SNAP benefits.
Based on quick Googling, it seems like the $11 billion is total from 2014 to 2016, although good information is surprisingly hard to come by. Most of the articles are light on content and heavy on umbrage.
Do you have a link to the breakdown you summarized in your post above?
<edit>Here's a link to an analysis by the Democratic-partisan CBPP.
It does seem to verify that the $11 billion dollars in cuts are the cost of ending the temporary increase at an earlier date than was anticipated. It also mentions that the President and Congress used the $11 billion to pay for other things, like funding transfers to state governments to pay for Medicaid and local school districts, and other hunger-related aid efforts.
The move by House Republicans to cut an additional $4 billion/year has virtually no likelihood of actually being enacted. Rather, it's a craven move by House Republicans to demagogue about supposed abuse of the system.
Given all this, here's my personal final take on the situation: Democrats belly-aching about the $11 billion in cuts after 1) agreeing to them and 2) spending the money on other priorities are being extremely disingenuous. That these 'cuts' are just rolling back temporary increases that unexpectedly lasted longer than anticipated just adds a layer of bad faith bargaining*. Also, the large majority of House Republicans like to take pointless symbolic actions to show their general disdain for the poor, and their conviction that they are undeserving of any support. I imagine such craven political moves help with a certain class of Republican voter, but I think it's one of the ugliest, most ignoble traits of current Republican leadership.</edit>
*Caveat: as I've waded through the miasma of pieces about this, I haven't seen any quotes from actual Democratic lawmakers demogoguing on this issue. It seems to be largely constrained to interest groups and media outlets. So my 'bad faith bargaining' annoyance only extends to those parties, who are deliberately obfuscating details in order to mislead the public.
[ December 08, 2013, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That sounds reasonable.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This also only shows charities that provide food. Most charities provide more than that.
Many churches for example help struggling families with not only food but help with their electricity, water, and gas bills, as well as mortgage payments. Life saving medical care is also provided at times.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity. Nobody comes to my door and tells me that kids are starving, because they aren't. I'm ok if that comes out of my paycheck- at least it doesn't go to building some awful church in my neighborhood. Atheism for the win on this one.
The US produces more than twice its nutritional needs, and we still can't get this together. We subsidize growers, so why can't we do this?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I see what he's saying though. He's willing to pay far more in taxes to a government that does the bulk of what we rely on charities to do in America. They don't need soup kitchens, etc, because it's taken care of.
I think that's a perfectly respectable view to hold and I don't think he should feel morally compelled to give any more.
Part of the interesting divide in perspectives there is between a country who believes that securing basic necessities of life is optional to the point where people must be compelled to give extra vs. a nation that believes such a thing isn't optional, it's a right that everyone MUST contribute too, and thus the pool of charity services is much smaller because the need is smaller.
Personally I prefer that way.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Part of the interesting divide in perspectives there is between a country who believes that securing basic necessities of life is optional to the point where people must be compelled to give extra vs. a nation that believes such a thing isn't optional, it's a right that everyone MUST contribute too, and thus the pool of charity services is much smaller because the need is smaller.[/QB]
It's also worth noting this fact:
Charity for the poor is needed most during an economic recession, as those living on the edge of poverty find themselves falling into it, and those already in poverty find themselves in ever more dire straits.
But what (to no surprise) actually happens during a recession? Charity decreases. Not because people are jerks, but because people have less to give. Private charity simply isn't enough.
Governments, on the other hand, have the ability to use deficit spending to continue to fund (or even expand) social safety nets in times of need.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Which also serves to boost aggregate demand, sparking the economy into a quicker recovery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The only way I'd be likely to give money to a church is if I handed it to Pope Francis personally.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Since you're not religious, I don't know why you'd give to a church anyway. But I would like to point out that many churches and denominations do disclose all of that information. I would not be a member of a church or denomination that didn't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Definitely don't give to a church! But you should do both: pay your taxes and give to international charity.
The reason is that your taxes only help people in your country. The foreign poor also need your help, and indeed, some of them need it much more.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's not the case. My tax money also goes to foreign aid.
My point is, I am really just against most forms of charity on ethical terms. I think for a lot of the above stated reasons, it doesn't work. It is subject to some perverse economic incentives that badly affect its ability to cope with demand, and it empowers secular and religious organizations to pursue their own moral, social agendas using money that is not their own.
I am not a communist, but I believe that the only organization in which I have a chance at real say (however small) is in government. I also believe that organizations that work outside of the government also necessarily work to justify their own existence. This is an ethical problem for a charity, in general, and introduces its own set of perverse incentives. So I don't support charities in any form. I am a charitable person: I don't refuse to help people, but I don't believe that there are many organizations capable of using my money to do more good than they do ultimate harm.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm kind of with Orincoro on that one. And I say this as someone who tithes and who has worked for non-profits and/or churches most of my adult life. Voluntary charity is a hideously inefficient way to make sure that people's basic needs are met.
Edit: I don't agree with the last bit, I think that many/most do more good than they do harm. But tax-supported government aid is much more efficient.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Can someone voluntarily donate additional money to the same programs they're paying taxes for? I believe in paying taxes. Always have. But I would never feel satisfied with myself with giving back only what I have to, at the hazard of breaking the law. I say this as someone whose in a priveledged financial situation.
At the same time, many people don't take the time to research or to carefully pick what charity they're giving to. I'm flashing back that Kony video that hit the internet a couple years ago.
[ December 14, 2013, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Can someone voluntarily donate additional money to the same programs they're paying taxes for? I believe in paying taxes. Always have. But I would never feel satisfied with myself with giving back only what I have to, at the hazard of breaking the law. I say this as someone whose in a privileged financial situation.
The issue in this is that giving any more than your legal obligation clearly delineates the difference between an ethical right (doing the right thing), and a moral righteousness: (being a good person). This is why I support government backed aid programs and social welfare: doing the right thing does not confer special status or righteousness, but "being a good person," is in itself an entirely different sort of act.
I will vote for social reform, and I will pay my obligation up to that requirement. Any more, and I am placing myself and my moral goodness above that of others, upon whom I don't place that same onus. Charity, in my view, tells the poor that they need the rich, whereas social welfare tells the poor that the rich need them.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Who is the more selfish, the charitable person who is upset that their money goes to taxes which feed the hungry, but doesn't give them a sense of righteousness, or the starving child who enjoys the food that the government gives them, but who doesn't give a darn about your sense of righteousness.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I will vote for social reform, and I will pay my obligation up to that requirement. Any more, and I am placing myself and my moral goodness above that of others, upon whom I don't place that same onus. Charity, in my view, tells the poor that they need the rich, whereas social welfare tells the poor that the rich need them.
If not sending the poor the wrong kind of message is more important to you than saving additional lives, I guess you're making the right decision.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm a lot less rich than the government is. The message, either way, is that they need someone, and it's their choice whether or not to accept assistance, from one source or the other. Not trying to be self righteous, and not everyone has the same incentives/obligation/ to be charitable to others anyway. I was born lucky in terms of finances, and I actually get financial aid for college because California classifies me as an independant, even though my Dad would support me. I just feel like I have to give some of my luck away. Because I'm an asshole.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Thisthisthis. I am so tired of the "if the government would stop feeding them there would be no more poor people" argument. It is so demonstrably not true.
[ December 16, 2013, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Thisthisthis. I am so tired of the "if the government would stop feeding them there would be no more poor people" argument. It is so demonstrably not true.
Actually, if they starved to death, we WOULD have less poor people, wouldn't we?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well that hasn't happened yet either, has it? Clearly, we keep making more poor people.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well that hasn't happened yet either, has it? Clearly, we keep making more poor people.
It hasn't..... but neither has throwing money at the problem. The government had to step in because charities weren't effective enough in helping the poor. The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor. Dependence breeds dependence.
I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Who said it would? Food supplies are a safety net that gaurantee people a minumum quality of life, some of which don't have the skillsets or resources to succeed in a system of winners and losers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance
What, OUR government?
quote:I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary.
Explain this completely?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor.
This would be damning if it were true. But it is just not true.
I see why the concentricity of the logic appeals to you, and why you believed it when someone else said it. But it is not true.
quote: Dependence breeds dependence.
A tired canard if ever there was one. The conflation of "assistance" with "dependence," is a weasely way of saying that those in need of help, are no different from those who refuse to help themselves. Even when there is a substantial difference.
The laid-off factory worker who can't pay his rent and feed his kids is not looking to be dependent. He may be looking for assistance. These are not the same things. If assistance means the space necessary to pursue job training in another field, with a reasonable belief that one will find gainful employment, the majority of people will take it. That is in people's nature. Just as it is in yours.
If something happened tomorrow that wiped out your savings Geraine, and left you jobless and unable to pay your rent, would you turn down assistance from the government? Knowing you, I would say you have pride in your ability to be a provider. So I'm sure you would take that money, pay the rent, and get trained to do another job. Am I wrong? Would that money be bad for you? Would you prefer to be put out on the street in that situation?
Now ask yourself: why are other people different from you? Are you that much better than them?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor.
This would be damning if it were true. But it is just not true.
I think you're both up in the night. Government assistance wouldn't EVER have the effect of decreasing the number of poor. This holds true for both the working poor and jobless.
So, let's split "assistance" into two categories: investment and subsistence. - Investment would be educational grants, small business loans, and the like. - Subsistence would include programs to feed and house the poor, etc.
Investment assistance wouldn't affect the poor to any great degree. Education won't create jobs -- it only allows people to (better) qualify for an existing employment pool. As for small business, over the long-term the market is a zero-sum game . . . portions of the market will reallocate to accommodate (successful) small business; but unless there's a change to foreign trade balance, there is no appreciable change to the overall market. Just a shuffling of existing capital and market capitalization.
Subsistence assistance is just going to keep people from going hungry for another day. It's not going to create jobs. The poor will still be poor. They just might not be both poor and hungry. At least in the short term.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: [qb] [QUOTE] Dependence breeds dependence.
A tired canard if ever there was one. The conflation of "assistance" with "dependence," is a weasely way of saying that those in need of help, are no different from those who refuse to help themselves. Even when there is a substantial difference.
The laid-off factory worker who can't pay his rent and feed his kids is not looking to be dependent. He may be looking for assistance. These are not the same things. If assistance means the space necessary to pursue job training in another field, with a reasonable belief that one will find gainful employment, the majority of people will take it. That is in people's nature. Just as it is in yours.
If something happened tomorrow that wiped out your savings Geraine, and left you jobless and unable to pay your rent, would you turn down assistance from the government? Knowing you, I would say you have pride in your ability to be a provider. So I'm sure you would take that money, pay the rent, and get trained to do another job. Am I wrong? Would that money be bad for you? Would you prefer to be put out on the street in that situation?
Now ask yourself: why are other people different from you? Are you that much better than them?
Straw man.
Orinco's argument: If there is a short-term increase in the unemployed, there is not necessarily a correlation between increased assistance and dependence.
Geraine's actual statement: Increased assistance creates increased dependence. This seems to infer that the increase is specifically in regard to the population of people already living on the dole. It is an entirely logical supposition that (with this class of person) some level of increased assistance would have a causal relationship with (at least) some level of increased dependence.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, it's not a straw man. Rather Geraine's argument is a straw man. Me redefining the terms (properly, and with justification), does not a straw man make.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It is an entirely logical supposition that (with this class of person) some level of increased assistance would have a causal relationship with (at least) some level of increased dependence.
Sorry, no. The argument against the specific subset of instances was being applied to the argument against assistance in general, without regard to variety or circumstance, much less to the actual proportional figures. This is at best lazy, and at worse highly disingenuous.
In point of fact, the overwhelming majority of government assistance does not constitute "dependence" on government subsidy, and the overwhelming majority of recipients of government assistance are not dependent upon it for their living or survival, and increases in government assistance in the near-term are *not* correlated with increased dependence on subsidy. This has ever been the case. The entire economic basis of the earned-income tax credit is founded upon these basic facts. If it didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing it.
Geraine likes to ignore that fact, because it doesn't fit the logic he wants to believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
My point is that perpetual poverty is more than just money. There is monetary aspects as well, but social and cultural capital is just as important. We have spoken on Hatrack before about how hard it is for kids in poor neighborhoods to get a good education, get a good job, etc. Money is only part of the solution.
Children that grow up relying not on their parents but on the money the government gives their parents sets a bad example for the child. The child is more likely to repeat the cycle than get out of it.
Money is certainly one aspect, but things like good education, nutrition, and jobs are just as crucial in helping people get out of the cycle of poverty. There is a culture of poverty that exists.
Money isn't the only solution.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
My point is that perpetual poverty is more than just money.
No. It's just mostly about money. So let's do focus on the 1% of it that isn't about money.
quote: Children that grow up relying not on their parents but on the money the government gives their parents sets a bad example for the child. The child is more likely to repeat the cycle than get out of it.
No. And if this were true, then the welfare roles would have ballooned in the past 35 years to encompass a massive wave of lazy assed poor kids. But that didn't happen. Maybe because this theory is just stupid, and (though you didn't mention race), mostly based on racist attitudes about the poor.
quote:Money is certainly one aspect, but things like good education, nutrition, and jobs are just as crucial in helping people get out of the cycle of poverty. There is a culture of poverty that exists.
Good education takes money. Good nutrition takes money. Getting a good job takes good education and networking, which takes money.
Even staying above the level of mental exhaustion which keeps a person from collapsing on the couch at home after a long day of low-wage work while worrying about where their next rent payment will come from *takes money.* That is a problem that a little bit of money actually solves for a lot of people. Not a *lot* of money, but just enough.
So the things that are crucial to getting people out of poverty are things which cost money to accomplish.
quote: There is a culture of poverty that exists
I have no earthly idea what this is supposed to mean. You think there are people who are taught by their parents to be poor? Like, as a cultural trait? A culture of losers? Does that actually make sense to you?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Orincoro -- you're taking advantage of the fact that Geraine is generalizing to change the argument. You've admitted that. Call it what you will.
From a limited perspective, his argument is valid. There is a certain segment of society, and I'm not purporting to understand the size, that is content to live on government funding rather than work. It is entirely logical that this segment would be further disincentive to work if the funding is increased.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
On the flip side, you're right. There are many things a government can do to create upward mobility and decrease poverty for a segment (majority?) of a population. Unfortunately, government attempts in the US are utterly uncoordinated and improperly implemented. Yes, there are many people with good intentions, but I've yet to see a program that works on a macro level.
What are some ways that government assistance is effective? I think the increased availability to student loans enacted by the current administration is one of the best that I've seen. Are there other good programs?
On the flip side, are there theoretical programs that might work better?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
As someone who was once homeless, I would say that public housing is the biggest step a government could take toward eliminating poverty.
Extreme poverty and homelessness is very difficult to escape. If the government, business, or private charity (better yet, a consortium of all of the above) built super low-cost fabricated housing, it would take care of a huge number of societal ills. - Provide access to a metropolitan center. - Provide access to hygiene (group? personal?). - Provide an address to receive mail. - Have a central drop-off point for additional charity (food, clothes, education, same day labor, etc).
IMHO this would eliminate a good deal of petty crime and make the streets cleaner and safer. For the homeless, it would allow them the option of becoming a contributing member of society (something hard to do when you're dirty, don't have an address, etc).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: There is a certain segment of society, and I'm not purporting to understand the size, that is content to live on government funding rather than work. It is entirely logical that this segment would be further disincentive to work if the funding is increased.
Aside from the fact that this is not most people, so what? Let's imagine that this is true for some small portion of the population. So what? We have more people working than there is work that needs to be done. If these people were, from a paid work point of view, absolute parasites, so what? Should they starve? Sleep on heating grates in the winter? They may be extraordinarily kind or tell amazing stories or sing beautiful songs or be and do any number of wonderful things that we don't "incentivize" monetarily unless one is extraordinarily lucky.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
My point is that perpetual poverty is more than just money. There is monetary aspects as well, but social and cultural capital is just as important. We have spoken on Hatrack before about how hard it is for kids in poor neighborhoods to get a good education, get a good job, etc. Money is only part of the solution.
Children that grow up relying not on their parents but on the money the government gives their parents sets a bad example for the child. The child is more likely to repeat the cycle than get out of it.
Money is certainly one aspect, but things like good education, nutrition, and jobs are just as crucial in helping people get out of the cycle of poverty. There is a culture of poverty that exists.
Money isn't the only solution.
I don't think this exactly answers the question?
You said "I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary."
I want you to explain completely what the cultural problem is. What, to you, is a complete definition of the 'culture of poverty?' Are you saying that it's when kids in impoverished families see their parents buying them food with SNAP funds, they're more likely to decide "oh cool government means I don't have to work" and be poor when they grow up too?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There seems to be some miscommunication here. For reducing the number of people in poverty, I fail to see why simply giving them enough money to not be in poverty wouldn't reduce the number of people that are in poverty. The cut-off for poverty is a simple income cut-off.
For example, in Canada we have welfare programmes like OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) that effectively guarantee senior's income to not be below the poverty line.
Result? Our senior's poverty rate is roughly 6% as opposed to 24% in the US and of that 6%, there's an over-representation of recent senior immigrants that don't qualify for welfare. link
There are other terms like "perpetual poverty" or "dependence" that are very unclear to me. But "poverty" is pretty clear, so when posters are saying things like "Extreme poverty ... is very difficult to escape" that doesn't make sense to me.
It seems pretty simple, you give people in extreme poverty enough money so they aren't measured as being in poverty.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
My point is that perpetual poverty is more than just money. There is monetary aspects as well, but social and cultural capital is just as important. We have spoken on Hatrack before about how hard it is for kids in poor neighborhoods to get a good education, get a good job, etc. Money is only part of the solution.
Children that grow up relying not on their parents but on the money the government gives their parents sets a bad example for the child. The child is more likely to repeat the cycle than get out of it.
Money is certainly one aspect, but things like good education, nutrition, and jobs are just as crucial in helping people get out of the cycle of poverty. There is a culture of poverty that exists.
Money isn't the only solution.
I don't think this exactly answers the question?
You said "I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary."
I want you to explain completely what the cultural problem is. What, to you, is a complete definition of the 'culture of poverty?' Are you saying that it's when kids in impoverished families see their parents buying them food with SNAP funds, they're more likely to decide "oh cool government means I don't have to work" and be poor when they grow up too?
The cultural problem doesn't just exist within the poor communities. Being poor growing up can cause a child to feel hopelessness, have a low self esteem, and have a horrible sense of worth. Many times the children are just simply used to receiving government benefits. It's often all they know. The majority of the children come from single parent homes who work, so often their friends and the street are the only things that guide them outside of school.
It also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
Look at inner city schools. We approach their education from a deficit perspective. The education system receives a ton of money, but it is spent more on the "product" of education than the "process" of education. How are public charter schools here in Las Vegas able to give a better education to students in low income areas with less money and resources? They don't treat the kids as if they are at a disadvantage. They don't even provide school lunches. Yet these kids are consistently scoring higher on tests than every other public school in low income territories.
Culture is ONE of the problems of poverty. Even many democrats and left-leaning scholars are now saying that culture plays a role. It's not just the conservatives, Oscar Lewis', or Daniel Moynihan's of the world anymore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Orincoro -- you're taking advantage of the fact that Geraine is generalizing to change the argument. You've admitted that. Call it what you will.
It's not generalization, it's conflating two unlike terms. You don't get to do that and have a sound argument.
quote: From a limited perspective, his argument is valid.
His argument is not even internally valid- though it presupposes a mechanism not supported by the evidence anyway. Since it is an argument against government assistance (or an argument that government assistance is "too high") that supports itself with references to government dependence, which is a fundamentally different issue, it lacks any internal validity. It's like arguing that apples are bad because we have too many oranges (even if we don't actually).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: t also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
It's remarkably less stupid than focusing on a person's culture as the root of their poverty, particularly in America. Particularly postulating that a person's poverty is due to acculturation. I know you really really want to focus on it, but it's just not as important as you want to believe it is.
Believe me, by the way, I know what acculturated social parasitism looks like. You've probably never met a Rom in your life, for example. Much less been to a village full of them, living in disgusting conditions, and digging through garbage instead of taking the work that's offered to them. I've seen that, and I still don't believe their poverty has its roots in their culture. It has its roots in their total alienation from the greater society. But no class of Americans has ever been through the cultural destruction those people have- not since slavery ended.
It exists, but you've never seen it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It seems pretty simple, you give people in extreme poverty enough money so they aren't measured as being in poverty.
What's weird about American conservatism is the wildly bipolar ideologies: America and it's people are capable of doing anything provided the comfort of freedom, but absolutely incapable of doing anything for themselves, provided the comfort of support.
When "support," looks to conservatives like freedom, for example, the freedom bestowed by a large defense budget, or agriculture subsidies, it's good. But when the support looks like a give-away, like a food program, or education, health care, or god-forbid, social assistance, that's not good, and it's not freedom.
The concept that freedom in an egalitarian society is possibly dependent upon a scaled approach to different levels of self-sufficiency is too much, and the center does not hold for American conservatism. But if any gentile white people should fall on hard times, exceptions will be made.
In other words, racism.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: t also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
It's remarkably less stupid than focusing on a person's culture as the root of their poverty, particularly in America. Particularly postulating that a person's poverty is due to acculturation. I know you really really want to focus on it, but it's just not as important as you want to believe it is.
Believe me, by the way, I know what acculturated social parasitism looks like. You've probably never met a Rom in your life, for example. Much less been to a village full of them, living in disgusting conditions, and digging through garbage instead of taking the work that's offered to them. I've seen that, and I still don't believe their poverty has its roots in their culture. It has its roots in their total alienation from the greater society. But no class of Americans has ever been through the cultural destruction those people have- not since slavery ended.
It exists, but you've never seen it.
I didn't know you knew so much about me or where I have been. I actually have seen extremely poor people. I lived with them for two years. Houses made literally out of garbage they could piece together to have a roof over their heads. Kids that ran around on the street naked because they literally could not afford clothes.
Just to summarize what you typed: (and correct me if I'm wrong)A culture of poverty exists, just not in this country, and the reason this culture doesn't exist is because of lack of acculturation?
Come on now, I have a hard time you honestly believe that, especially when there is acculturation happening here in the US. It has been going on for decades, and not just with Latinos. If you look at the family unit there have been numerous changes over the past 50-60 years. The rising divorce rate. The amount of time parents spend in the home. The rise in single parent families. The fall in quality of education due to ineffective programs, teachers unions, etc.
All of the evidence is right there. There doesn't have to be an earth shattering event for acculturation to occur. It's been happening slowly for the last half a dozen decades.
Lack of money doesn't cause the behaviors either. If that were the case, most Americans in the 19th and 20th century would have been extremely dysfunctional.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
“One of the ways you get on this program is having problems in school,” notes Richard V. Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist who co-wrote a book last year about these disability programs. “If you do better in school, you threaten the income of the parents. It’s a terrible incentive.”
I want an honest answer to a couple of questions from you:
If we gave every person in poverty $1 million dollars, do you believe that the majority of them would spend it wisely?
Do you believe that they would change their diets, seek to be more healthy, and get their kids a good education, or would they spend it on other things?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It seems pretty simple, you give people in extreme poverty enough money so they aren't measured as being in poverty.
What's weird about American conservatism is the wildly bipolar ideologies: America and it's people are capable of doing anything provided the comfort of freedom, but absolutely incapable of doing anything for themselves, provided the comfort of support.
When "support," looks to conservatives like freedom, for example, the freedom bestowed by a large defense budget, or agriculture subsidies, it's good. But when the support looks like a give-away, like a food program, or education, health care, or god-forbid, social assistance, that's not good, and it's not freedom.
The concept that freedom in an egalitarian society is possibly dependent upon a scaled approach to different levels of self-sufficiency is too much, and the center does not hold for American conservatism. But if any gentile white people should fall on hard times, exceptions will be made.
In other words, racism.
So having people depending on government dependence somehow equals freedom? You do realize how silly that is, don't you? If you depend on someone or something to survive, are you free?
As far as your claim for "racism" is concerned, you are hilarious. If the majority of poor people are not white, then anyone that doesn't think throwing money at them is the best course of action *must* be racist?
Glad to know that even you use fallacies every now and then.
As far as your defense budget / agricultural subsidies, etc, I find myself firmly in the libertarian camp when it comes to those subjects.
Whenever you beholden yourself to someone or an entity, you are not free.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
The cultural problem doesn't just exist within the poor communities. Being poor growing up can cause a child to feel hopelessness, have a low self esteem, and have a horrible sense of worth. Many times the children are just simply used to receiving government benefits. It's often all they know. The majority of the children come from single parent homes who work, so often their friends and the street are the only things that guide them outside of school.
It also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
You're telling me "the cultural problem doesn't just exist within the poor commumities" and "culture is ONE of the problems of poverty." but you are still not really giving me a description of what the cultural problem is. You're not, I don't think, describing for me what I'm asking for, just giving me addendums to some unexplained core.
I don't know if it's being answered in a roundabout way?
You said "I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary."
What is that problem? What is the biggest problem? Why is it more cultural than monetary? What's the complete definition of the cultural problem you are talking about? What is the 'culture of poverty' you are trying to explain?
Please answer it in a complete summation. Like "the culture of poverty is _________" or "the biggest problem we have when dealing with poverty is _________" or "the reason why the biggest problems we have with poverty are cultural are __________"
Sorry if I'm not getting something you are TRYING to get past, but I'm not seeing a description I can work on yet.
quote:Culture is ONE of the problems of poverty. Even many democrats and left-leaning scholars are now saying that culture plays a role. It's not just the conservatives, Oscar Lewis', or Daniel Moynihan's of the world anymore.
Literally no Democrat I can think of does not think there are no cultural problems relating to poverty or has ever said that culture does not play a role in poverty. Where on earth does THIS come from?
quote:How are public charter schools here in Las Vegas able to give a better education to students in low income areas with less money and resources?
To answer your question flatly: good question, because if they ostensibly can, they aren't. They're worse than the public schools in performance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geraine -
quote:Whenever you beholden yourself to someone or an entity, you are not free.
Describe for me a situation in the United States, other than being fabulously wealthy, where you are not beholden to anyone?
People who make the arguments you are making tend to limit the idea of being beholden purely to government assistance. But you're beholden to your employer as well. And a lot of other people that make modern society functional.
Very few people are not necessarily dependent on others to make their lives work. And it doesn't really matter that you work for it. Most of the poor work as well. Modern welfare is often dependent on work in order to receive benefits. But our society requires a perpetual underclass to keep the service industry affordable for the middle class to purchase services and goods from. We give them enough of our tax money to subsidize those cheap goods but not so much that it neutralizes the benefits.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: So having people depending on government dependence somehow equals freedom? You do realize how silly that is, don't you? If you depend on someone or something to survive, are you free?
No. If you *can* depend on someone for support, then you can be free. The key denominator here in this equation is *access* to support, not the support itself. The idea of a social safety net, is that it frees the individual from the worst consequences of freely made decisions. Without that net of support, society would be dominated by a minority of lucky, fantastically rich and conservative investors, and a majority of poor people who couldn't afford to take risks to get ahead, since taking risks literally means risking your survival to prosper. That's what libertarianism would look like.
This is borne out in game theory, by the way: social security is partly structured around Nash equilibriums (certainly influenced by them)- if society is full of rational actors, who are aware that all involved parties will take on a certain level of risk, all should rationally be willing to support a system in which the worst consequence of that risk, weighed against a reasonable loss in reward, can be eliminated, ensuring mutually higher social prosperity.
In short: you benefit from there not being a lot of poor people, just as much as poor people benefit from your support. And the money spent on social security has a net-positive effect on total economic growth. This has always been true. And the existence of social support benefits all parties, because it encourages more appropriate levels of risk taking (eg: starting a business, taking a loan for education, etc). Risk is good in the right proportion, and poor people can't take financial risks, meaning you end up with a sluggish, oligarchically dominated economy. The South in 1850, in other words.
quote: As far as your claim for "racism" is concerned, you are hilarious. If the majority of poor people are not white, then anyone that doesn't think throwing money at them is the best course of action *must* be racist?
No, No. You misunderstand.
It's just that the chances that that person is a racist are extremely high. It's not logically bound to be that way, it just usually *is* that way practically. Particularly in your case, given your grasping justifications for your views of the poor as "inculcated" into poverty by their lowly cultural backgrounds. That is a fundamentally racist and stupid assumption, and you are guilty of it. Not all rich white people are, but you are.
quote: Glad to know that even you use fallacies every now and then.
Nope. You just don't understand solid argumentation when you see it.
quote: Whenever you beholden yourself to someone or an entity, you are not free.
Pish posh. You're an American. You own your government. And you are politically responsible, as we all are, for how it's run. You're not much of an American if that isn't a principle you believe in.
[ December 19, 2013, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: t also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
It's remarkably less stupid than focusing on a person's culture as the root of their poverty, particularly in America. Particularly postulating that a person's poverty is due to acculturation. I know you really really want to focus on it, but it's just not as important as you want to believe it is.
Believe me, by the way, I know what acculturated social parasitism looks like. You've probably never met a Rom in your life, for example. Much less been to a village full of them, living in disgusting conditions, and digging through garbage instead of taking the work that's offered to them. I've seen that, and I still don't believe their poverty has its roots in their culture. It has its roots in their total alienation from the greater society. But no class of Americans has ever been through the cultural destruction those people have- not since slavery ended.
Two words: Native Americans.
If you think this kind of poverty doesn't exist in America, think again.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's true. You caught me underthinking it. I would say that some reservations certainly represent an exception to that rule.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
There's also extreme poverty in some of the inner cities (Chicago, Detroit) and many rural communities (West Virginia).
I'd argue that some of these conditions are, in fact, worse, due to extreme weather conditions.
I've been to Malaysia and Central America. Some Americans have it worse.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
The argument that there is no such thing as generational poverty is a poor one.
There are people that are in poverty because they're lazy bums who simply won't make an effort. That's true, yes. The vast majority of them, however, learned the life skills and habits that are in large part holding them back from their parents.
I'm talking about things like substance abuse, an inability to manage one's finances properly (whether through lack of interest or loss of hope,) a lack of interest in pursuing educational opportunities to the fullest extent possible.
Does this mean that every child that comes from such a home is fated to live in poverty? Of course not. There are plenty of people who break the cycle. But that doesn't change the fact that a child coming from such a background is much more likely to fall into the pit, doomed to an extremely difficult or even impossible job of getting out, if they should even decide to try.
Things like foodstamps and welfare are not something that I would ever want to take away; they have their place and they do a good thing. Generational poverty can not be ignored, however; it very much is a cultural thing, present in both minority and white communities. ("Poor white trash.")
Being successful in the any country requires a person to have certain lifeskills. If anything, I'd be for more money being put into efforts to break that cycle and teach the children (and any willing adults) the necessary skills to be successful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That's true. You caught me underthinking it. I would say that some reservations certainly represent an exception to that rule.
Not many. There's a believe that casinos have made life on the reservation high on the hog, but that often obscures the fact that little casino money ever really improves the lives of most people living on the Rez. I met a lot of people who either studied Native American history professionally or actually grew up on the Rez when I was at UNL, and it's a grinding sort of poverty most Americans only see in documentaries about bombed out post-WWII towns and third world slums.
It's a type of poverty most of us will never see first hand, because our experience with Native Americans in most parts of the country is limited to old western movies and craft shows.
Poverty in the inner cities of places like Detroit is terrible, but the Rez is a different level entirely.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
The cultural problem doesn't just exist within the poor communities. Being poor growing up can cause a child to feel hopelessness, have a low self esteem, and have a horrible sense of worth. Many times the children are just simply used to receiving government benefits. It's often all they know. The majority of the children come from single parent homes who work, so often their friends and the street are the only things that guide them outside of school.
It also exists among more wealthy groups (more so) in how they view the poor. If a kid is poor he isn't as educated. If he is poor he must be lazy. If he is poor he must be dirty. It is a stupid attitude to have.
You're telling me "the cultural problem doesn't just exist within the poor commumities" and "culture is ONE of the problems of poverty." but you are still not really giving me a description of what the cultural problem is. You're not, I don't think, describing for me what I'm asking for, just giving me addendums to some unexplained core.
I don't know if it's being answered in a roundabout way?
You said "I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary."
What is that problem? What is the biggest problem? Why is it more cultural than monetary? What's the complete definition of the cultural problem you are talking about? What is the 'culture of poverty' you are trying to explain?
Please answer it in a complete summation. Like "the culture of poverty is _________" or "the biggest problem we have when dealing with poverty is _________" or "the reason why the biggest problems we have with poverty are cultural are __________"
Sorry if I'm not getting something you are TRYING to get past, but I'm not seeing a description I can work on yet.
quote:Culture is ONE of the problems of poverty. Even many democrats and left-leaning scholars are now saying that culture plays a role. It's not just the conservatives, Oscar Lewis', or Daniel Moynihan's of the world anymore.
Literally no Democrat I can think of does not think there are no cultural problems relating to poverty or has ever said that culture does not play a role in poverty. Where on earth does THIS come from?
quote:How are public charter schools here in Las Vegas able to give a better education to students in low income areas with less money and resources?
To answer your question flatly: good question, because if they ostensibly can, they aren't. They're worse than the public schools in performance.
Sam, I alluded to the answer in the post, but I will make it more clear.
The destruction (There is probably a better word) of the family unit has been the single greatest "cultural" issue in perpetual poverty.
There is a lot that goes into that though. Single parents needing to work long hours outside of the home. Divorce rates are high. Families live further away from non-immediate family due to advances in technology. Children have less supervision.
The article I posted has statistics regarding poverty among complete families vs. broken families.
This isn't something that is specific to the poor, but it affects the poor more than middle class families.
As for the charter schools, I appreciate the articles Tom posted, from everything I had read it was the opposite. There have been problems in many charter schools here in the valley, especially one concerning fraud (At Quest Academy, mentioned in the article).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Geraine -
quote:Whenever you beholden yourself to someone or an entity, you are not free.
Describe for me a situation in the United States, other than being fabulously wealthy, where you are not beholden to anyone?
People who make the arguments you are making tend to limit the idea of being beholden purely to government assistance. But you're beholden to your employer as well. And a lot of other people that make modern society functional.
That is what I am saying. We essentially choose to give up our personal freedom in order to survive.
If the government had some way of knowing how long every individual lived, would you be ok if they came to you and said, "We looked and we see that you are going to live until you are 90 years old, so from now on we are going to dictate how you spend 40% of your time every single day. There are some people that will only live to be 50 years old, so we aren't going to dictate your time. After all, why should you have more free time than someone else!"
I can choose to work for my employer to support my family. I can't choose whether or not to support your family.
Well, that's not entirely true. I suppose I could just quit my job and collect benefits as well.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Should 8 year olds born to poor families who can't afford to feed their children be forced to sweep and clean school floors in order to qualify for the school to provide healthy food?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I suppose I could just quit my job and collect benefits as well.
Why don't you? Do you suppose that the motivations that keep you employed aren't present in the people that are collecting benefits?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is a lot that goes into that though. Single parents needing to work long hours outside of the home. Divorce rates are high. Families live further away from non-immediate family due to advances in technology. Children have less supervision.
The article I posted has statistics regarding poverty among complete families vs. broken families.
This isn't something that is specific to the poor, but it affects the poor more than middle class families.
Ok. Independent of marital status do you think that a child from a home in which the parent(s) are working or unworking poor but receive a significant amount of food and living aid from the government is more or less likely to move out of poverty as an adult than a child whose family is equally poor but who are denied food and living aid from the government?
When states like North Carolina cut back on their welfare programs and food aid to poor families so much that they lose federal backing of these programs see an increase or a decrease in intergenerational poverty?
If divorce creates situations where there is insufficient time and capacity by a single parent to raise a child, is that child better off if we subtract food and financial aid to the parent (to prevent them from apparently being trained to be dependent upon the government or w/e) or add food and financial aid to the parent (to allow the parent access to childcare and sufficient food for their child)?
Which do you think the data supports? The idea that poor children are ultimately better off when their caretakers don't get food aid because food aid produces intergenerational dependence and increased poverty overall, or are they better off with things like a robust safety net?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Somehow Sam, I don't think Geraine is frankly interested in any data which doesn't fit his narrative. It would be unlike his reasoning to submit to mere facts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geraine isn't capax. Give him more credit than that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It could seriously just be a question of not knowing, and in the case of things like federal food aid, the data IS rather unambiguous and can lead to a reassessment of position!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also while what elison is saying here:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Should 8 year olds born to poor families who can't afford to feed their children be forced to sweep and clean school floors in order to qualify for the school to provide healthy food?
is not exactly related to a position anyone here is taking, here's what he's talking about
quote:On Saturday, Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston (R) came out against free lunches, saying that children should have to pay at least a nominal amount or do some work like sweeping cafeteria floors.
"But one of the things I’ve talked to the secretary of agriculture about: Why don’t you have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria -- and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people -- getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch," he said.
Because nothing instills a good sense of American whats-what in a child like being forced to perform janitorial duties in school while the kids with better parents go off to play or learn or something. What's a little more lost government money when you can subject all the poor kids in America to a little bit more of that?
You know, I am pretty sure that children who grow up poor already have a keen understanding of what it's like to grow up poor. They're getting free meals at school in large part because many of them can't count on meals at home. Forget after school trips or the like, and they aren't getting those neat backpacks the other kids might be wearing, or new clothes for the school year, and shoes might have to last well past the point where they hurt to put on. I promise you, they know they're poor. They know they're excluded. Congress really doesn't need to pass a new law against schools feeding poor 12-year-olds unless poor 12-year-olds really get that there ain't gonna be no free handouts to you, you little still-too-happy shits.
Merry Christmas to you too, fella. Happy Jesus Day, or whatever you call it down at the ol' church.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Geraine isn't capax. Give him more credit than that.
Even when I'm not involved in the conversation you still take a dig at me? Huh... I thought you had more class than this, Lyrhawn.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)