The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: injest on May 01, 2008, 12:13:29 am ---true true
and here you are putting forward all these NEW ideas....you must feel like Moses crying in the desert...
--- End quote ---
I thought I saw a burning bush on the horizon! :o
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: broketrash on May 01, 2008, 12:15:31 am ---trying to be fair, I do say that your "fix" would fix some of the abuses around the edges.
but your fix offers no fundmental solutions to a system which traps the recipients in an endless cycle and the tax payers in another endless cycle.
--- End quote ---
We already have some Welfare reform in place don't we? Limited time to get the checks, the number of kids covered is now restricted to a certain number. We could improve and increase the criteria of receiving the benefits quite easily.
Artiste:
I think that we get poorer because we purchase too many items from criminals, like in big stores that uses slave labour items !
Does that make sense?
Au revoir,
hugs!
serious crayons:
So we have read delalluvia's very specific recommendations for fixing the welfare system.
But broketrash, I guess I'm not clear on exactly what you're advocating, aside from instituting a consumption tax. You have complained that the poor should not receive assistance to pay for food, medical care, education, etc. So are you saying those programs should all be eliminated? That the poor and their children should be required to fend for themselves, even if it means starving or dying for lack of medical care? And not only that, but -- via the consumption tax -- to pay A HIGHER PROPORTION of their income than more affluent people do for these basic necessities and other goods and services?
I'm not putting it harshly on purpose. I'm seriously wondering about what you would envision as an ideal world in this respect.
Here's what I think about when this subject comes up. A few years ago, I read "Tobacco Road" by Erskine Caldwell. One of the most depressing books I've ever read, it's a novel about poor people living in the days before Welfare, Medicare and other assistance programs. They scrounge for and squabble over food. Medical problems go untreated. A grandmother is left to die -- one less mouth to feed! -- a daughter with a cleft lip grows to adulthood without that fairly simple surgery. Education is out of the question, and hope of improving their circumstances is all but nonexistent. They live like animals, and accordingly behave like animals. The book is no "pity party" -- at times it's hard to tell whether Caldwell even feels much sympathy for his characters. But in any case, it does not paint an appealing picture, to say the least, of poverty in a society without safety nets.
Of course, throughout most of human history, the poor have had to fend for themselves, at whatever cost. But my impression is that we, as a wealthy developed society, felt a certain responsibility for sharing that wealth with those who can't -- for whatever reason, from physical disability to cultural handicaps -- accumulate their own.
(For anyone not familiar with the aforementioned novel, here's a description from Amazon):
--- Quote ---Novel by Erskine Caldwell, published in 1932. A tale of violence and sex among rural poor in the American South, the novel was highly controversial in its time. It is the story of Georgia sharecropper Jeeter Lester and his family, who are trapped by the bleak economic conditions of the Depression as well as by their own limited intelligence and destructive sexuality. Its tragic ending is almost foreordained by the characters' inability to change their lives. Caldwell's skillful use of dialect and his plain style made the book one of the best examples of literary naturalism in contemporary American fiction. The novel was adapted as a successful play in 1933.
--- End quote ---
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: SunShadow on May 01, 2008, 11:53:14 am ---I am a sometime believer in the philosophies of Ayn Rand, which bear a lot of resemblance to natural selection/survival of the fittest.
--- End quote ---
I'm not a believer in Ayn Rand, but I am a believer in Charles Darwin, and I get your point. However, as I was trying to say in an earlier post, the members of more affluent classes aren't necessarily the "fittest" -- often, they're just the luckiest. And the reverse is true of poor people. Some of them undoubtedly aren't all that "fit," but others just have no escape hatch. And while evolution is entirely lacking in compassion, we humans supposedly aren't.
But I agree with you that it is a complex moral situation with no easy answers and points to be made on both sides.
--- Quote ---Moreover, the poor in the US are not truly poor compared to poor elsewhere in the world. So do we keep it within national boundaries, or do we recognize the increasingly global community in which we live and try to help all people?
--- End quote ---
I say we do both. God knows how we should apportion it. But people are people.
I was just watching a slide show about Darfur on Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2188981/ and thinking about it in terms of our discussion here. Compared to the people in those slides, the average housing-project resident here lives on Easy Street. What makes the poor American's situation poignant is that s/he is surrounded by vast wealth, an example of which I also ran across this morning on the Reuters website:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/06/13/blackstone-ceos-3000-food-spree-and-40-crab-claws/
--- Quote ---Blackstone CEO’s $3,000 food spree and $40 crab claws
June 13th, 2007, filed by Michael Flaherty
As Blackstone settles into the pre-IPO “quiet period,” a Wall Street Journal article made a loud bang on Wednesday. The Journal highlights Stephen Schwarzman’s worth (expected to be more than $7.7 billion after the IPO), his size (5 foot 6 inches) and his competitive streak (he is quoted as saying, he wants to “inflict pain” on and “kill off” his rivals).
Better yet, the Journal article reveals some of Blackstone CEO’s extravagances, which may not go over too well with lawmakers in Washington and various European capitals who are seeking to get a grip on the huge riches that private equity executives are hauling in. The Journal points out:
”He expects lunches consisting of cold soup, a cold entrée such as lobster salad or fresh grilled tuna on salad, followed by dessert, Mr. Zeugin (his executive chef) says. He eats the three-course meal within 15 minutes, the chef says.”
“Mr. Zeugin says he often spends $3,000 for a weekend of food for Mr. Schwarzman and his wife, including stone crabs that cost $400, or $40 per claw. (Mr. Schwarzman says he had no idea how much the crabs cost.) Recently, Mr. Zeugin has been ill and is no longer working, although he is still on Mr. Schwarzman’s payroll.”
“Once, while sunning by the pool at his 11,000-square-foot home in Palm Beach, Fla., hecomplained to Jean-Pierre Zeugin, his executive chef and estate manager, that an employee wasn’t wearing the proper black shoes with his uniform, according to Mr. Zeugin. Mr. Schwarzman explains that he found the squeak of the rubber soles distracting.”
--- End quote ---
Personally, I'm not comfortable with a society that shrugs off such drastic inequities. It's not a question of whether Schwarzman is legally entitled to his wealth -- of course he is. But is he morally entitled to spend $3,000 for two days of food when there are people who don't eat that much in a year?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version