Who are the deserving poor?

[vern_humphrey]

I think you are missing 3 zeros on that cost figure. It takes a lot of irresponsible politicians to run up a deficit like that. Three billion is a rounding error in Washington.

Ah, you’re right – the correct figure being thrown around in Washington was $3 Trillion.

But if you went to the website and started adding up the “Trust Fund” (actually the surplus that was ripped off and spent) beginning with the most recent year, how many many years did you have to go back before you reached that magic $3 Trillion figure?

 

[emily47017]

It depends on whether you are talking about ‘relative-poverty’ or ‘absolute-poverty’.

In the former, absence of a TV, automobile or washing machine are considered ‘poverty’. In the latter, absence of food, shelter and clothing is considered poverty

i vote for the latter.

 

[josephdavid]

My position is don’t let the company – or the government – get its hands on your retirement pay. Handle it yourself – and pass laws so you can do that.

I am not worried about myself. I am worried about the poor now and tomorrow. But today’s poor in their 50 and 60’s have nothing to invest now how are they going to have anything to retire on? Should we say they are out of luck? No we help them, care for them and teach the next generation to do better.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not worried about myself. I am worried about the poor now and tomorrow. But today’s poor in their 50 and 60’s have nothing to invest now how are they going to have anything to retire on? Should we say they are out of luck? No we help them, care for them and teach the next generation to do better.

And who says differently?

If you retire today, you retire on Social Security. If you have no savings, it’s too late to generate them. So you will have to make do with what is available. That means charity.

But this forum is devoted to discussing Social Justice, which is all about correcting problems. So while we give** charity** to those retiring now, we also set our to correct the problem – and the problem is people contribute enough in FICA taxes to be wealthy when they retire – but the government rips off the money.

 

[Amolibri]

“…Social Justice, which is all about correcting problems”

It’s not an “either-or” issue, in my view, vern. I see your view of charity as a negative…of course you “teach people to fish”…but I somehow get a condescending view of charity from your posts…which is anything but christian. IMHO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“…Social Justice, which is all about correcting problems”

It’s not an “either-or” issue, in my view, vern.

Of course it’s not - - but until we attack both sides of hte problem, the Social Justice side as well as the charity side, we will do at least as much harm as good.

I see your view of charity as a negative…

Without meaning to offend you, I think you see what you want to see.

of course you “teach people to fish”…but I somehow get a condescending view of charity from your posts…

Without meaning to offend you, I think you see what you want to see.

which is anything but christian. IMHO.

I recommend you read the Epistles of Saint Paul – especially 2 Thessalonians, 3, 6-15 and 1 Timothy, Chapter 5.

 

[Trader]

New scenario.

In the 1960’s government madated lap belts for cars. Later shoulder belts were also required. Then laws were passed to require drivers to actually use the required safety equipment.

In the 1970’s driver compliance with mandatory safety belt laws was under 50% so 1974 cars were required to have a seat belt interlock device that prevented the engine from starting unless the belt was buckled first. You could buckle the belt behind you or you could easily reach under the seat and disconnect the interlock device without any tools.

Since people were still dying from failing to comply with the laws already on the books, insurance companies and self appointed safety advocates got the government to require airbags capable of protecting an unbelted adult male.

One of the consequences of all this safety legislation is that cars were more expensive and at least some people continued to drive their less safe older cars rather than purchase a safer new car. It was an unintended consequence, but of minor importance here.

The important consequence is that a device strong enough to protect an unbelted adult male was strong enough to kill children and small women who were in compliance with seat belt laws. If you only look at the numbers from the view of insurance companies and government, this was a success. Thousands of men were saved at the expense of hundreds of women and children. Besides that, adult men have more economic value than children, so saving them is cost effective.

Another way to look at it is that innocent women and children were killed to protect guilty men. Does anyone think that is OK? This is what happens when people are not held accountable for their own bad choices. To me that is not being judgemental, it is prudent judgement.

 

[Amolibri]

Of course it’s not - - but until we attack both sides of hte problem, the Social Justice side as well as the charity side, we will do at least as much harm as good.

Without meaning to offend you, I think you see what you want to see.

Touche’

 

[vern_humphrey]

New scenario.

In the 1960’s government madated lap belts for cars. Later shoulder belts were also required. Then laws were passed to require drivers to actually use the required safety equipment.

In the 1970’s driver compliance with mandatory safety belt laws was under 50% so 1974 cars were required to have a seat belt interlock device that prevented the engine from starting unless the belt was buckled first. You could buckle the belt behind you or you could easily reach under the seat and disconnect the interlock device without any tools.

Since people were still dying from failing to comply with the laws already on the books, insurance companies and self appointed safety advocates got the government to require airbags capable of protecting an unbelted adult male.

One of the consequences of all this safety legislation is that cars were more expensive and at least some people continued to drive their less safe older cars rather than purchase a safer new car. It was an unintended consequence, but of minor importance here.

The important consequence is that a device strong enough to protect an unbelted adult male was strong enough to kill children and small women who were in compliance with seat belt laws. If you only look at the numbers from the view of insurance companies and government, this was a success. Thousands of men were saved at the expense of hundreds of women and children. Besides that, adult men have more economic value than children, so saving them is cost effective.

Another way to look at it is that innocent women and children were killed to protect guilty men. Does anyone think that is OK? This is what happens when people are not held accountable for their own bad choices. To me that is not being judgemental, it is prudent judgement.

Interestingly enough, in the '70s, GM sent the government a report outlining the dangers of air bags to smaller people. The government, however, did not make that report public. Then, years later, when there were stories of air bags killing infants and children, Jill Claybrook, who led the push for airbags snorted, “Why would anyone put a child in the front seat?”

Well, gee, Ms Claybrook, maybe it’s because you told us air bags were safe, and you didn’t tell us they could kill children?

 

[boppaid]

Why not?

Some people are poor because of unchangeable problems – mental, drugs, and so on. But a lot of other people can be taught. First we give them the skills to get jobs so they can support themselves. Then we teach them how to save and invest.

Because by the time single mothers are done working 1 or 2 full time jobs to try to stay afloat, and then, um, mother their children, there are not enough hours in the day to go to school (trade or college) to LEARN new skills!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because by the time single mothers are done working 1 or 2 full time jobs to try to stay afloat, and then, um, mother their children, there are not enough hours in the day to go to school (trade or college) to LEARN new skills!

How many people do you know who work two full time jobs and also draw welfare?

 

[boppaid]

How many people do you know who work two full time jobs and also draw welfare?

Admittidly, only one…and that was a few years ago. Her children got into some serious trouble, then, as she wasn’t home enough to properly parent them. She has since remarried and is doing okay. Her one child, though, is not.

I do know more single moms who have worked one full time job and are on welfare. You don’t advocate their working 2 full time jobs, do you? Obviously, that is not in the best interest of the children. And going to school while working f/t is sometimes too much when you’re a single parent as well (for the same reason working two jobs is!) Obviously, not in all cases, but it depends on a number of factors: 1) how active (if at all) the other parent is; 2) how financially secure the other parent is; 3) how many children the parent has

 

[vern_humphrey]

Admittidly, only one…and that was a few years ago. Her children got into some serious trouble, then, as she wasn’t home enough to properly parent them. She has since remarried and is doing okay. Her one child, though, is not.

I do know more single moms who have worked one full time job and are on welfare. You don’t advocate their working 2 full time jobs, do you? Obviously, that is not in the best interest of the children. And going to school while working f/t is sometimes too much when you’re a single parent as well (for the same reason working two jobs is!) Obviously, not in all cases, but it depends on a number of factors: 1) how active (if at all) the other parent is; 2) how financially secure the other parent is; 3) how many children the parent has

I recommend first of all, finding the dads and being sure they pay their share. Then I recommend training for the moms. And yes, I know single moms who have full time jobs and also train for better jobs.

My wife is Assistant Director of Nursing at the local nursing home. She trains Certified Nursing Assistants and encourages them to go on to become Licensed Practical Nurses or Registered Nurses – and ropes me in to coach them in math and other subjects.

She has a pretty good track record with these girls.

 

[boppaid]

I recommend first of all, finding the dads and being sure they pay their share. Then I recommend training for the moms. And yes, I know single moms who have full time jobs and also train for better jobs.

My wife is Assistant Director of Nursing at the local nursing home. She trains Certified Nursing Assistants and encourages them to go on to become Licensed Practical Nurses or Registered Nurses – and ropes me in to coach them in math and other subjects.

She has a pretty good track record with these girls.

That’s great about your wife! Iknow it’s possible, but as I said, it depends on a number of factors. It is not possible for all single parents. Other factors I forgot to mention would be what type of job they work at as well. days? nights? physically demanding? desk jobs? etc. Perhaps the other parent is a dead beat. (happens SO much unfortunately ). Or perhaps the single parent has a lot of children, and doesn’t have time to work 40 hours, be involved in the chilren’s school, spend time with the children, AND go to college. I cannot imagine such a schedule without the help of a spouse! I, myself, work part time, have two children, and go to school full time. I sometimes don’t have the energy to do anything at the end of the day. Someone doing more than that (with more children, working f/t, with no spouse to help) would have to be so drained at the end of the day that there is no way to emotionally be there for the children. It breaks my heart to think of people in that situation.

We must also remember that it is not only single women in these sad situations. My cousin is raising his three daughters while working 60 hours a week. He lives in a bad n’hood, and is on welfare. The mother got addicted to drugs about 10 years into the marriage and took off. They cannot locate her, and even if they did, I’m sure she wouldn’t be any financial help since she doesn’t work.

There are so many examples of people who struggle like this. However, I got off on a tangent, and I no longer remember where I was going with this! I guess my point is that we cannot let people like this slip through the cracks. Not in health care. Not in money for food. And not in housing. We just can’t.

 

[OriginalJS]

What does it say about our society if many people feel more comfortable asking for help from strangers in Washington, DC than the people who know and love them? Shouldn’t they be working a lot harder on their interpersonal relationships?

The story of the Good Samaritan is shocking not just because a man in need was helped by his natural enemy, but because those who had a higher duty to him, the priest and the Levite, took a pass.

For whatever reasons, for many is easier to give money to relieve people in far off lands than to help that local alcoholic bum who urinates on the store windows and sleeps on the park bench you walk by on the way to work.

Many of those who need help have hair-raising personal histories that include an array of bad choices. Boozing, drugging, promiscuity, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, run-in’s with social agencies and law enforcement, school dropout, financial irresponsibility, poor language skills - you name it - dealing with these folks is not an uplifting experience. Then there qre the nutcakes and sociopaths who are scary and dangerous.

Up close and personal, many of these people are just ugly. Thats’ why it is easier for their advocates to go to Washington for help. The fewer people who actually know the people who are going to receive the benefits the better.

 

[OriginalJS]

I recommend first of all, finding the dads and being sure they pay their share.

Lots of luck with that!

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s great about your wife! Iknow it’s possible, but as I said, it depends on a number of factors. It is not possible for all single parents. Other factors I forgot to mention would be what type of job they work at as well. days? nights? physically demanding? desk jobs? etc

Certified Nursing Assistants work nights as well as days. The needs of the Nursing Home may dictate a CNA who is on day shift be moved at a moment’s notice to the night or evening shift. It is a physically demanding job – on their feet all day, lifting, turning, bathing and caring for residents.

Perhaps the other parent is a dead beat. (happens SO much unfortunately ).

Then he or she should be motivated to shoulder his or her responsibilities.

That’s
Or perhaps the single parent has a lot of children, and doesn’t have time to work 40 hours, be involved in the chilren’s school, spend time with the children, AND go to college.

Every CNA I know who has the motivation has succeeded – despite all these obstacles.

I cannot imagine such a schedule without the help of a spouse! I, myself, work part time, have two children, and go to school full time. I sometimes don’t have the energy to do anything at the end of the day. Someone doing more than that (with more children, working f/t, with no spouse to help) would have to be so drained at the end of the day that there is no way to emotionally be there for the children. It breaks my heart to think of people in that situation.

And yet we have single mothers who manage to succeed.

We must also remember that it is not only single women in these sad situations. My cousin is raising his three daughters while working 60 hours a week. He lives in a bad n’hood, and is on welfare. The mother got addicted to drugs about 10 years into the marriage and took off. They cannot locate her, and even if they did, I’m sure she wouldn’t be any financial help since she doesn’t work.

There are so many examples of people who struggle like this. However, I got off on a tangent, and I no longer remember where I was going with this! I guess my point is that we cannot let people like this slip through the cracks. Not in health care. Not in money for food. And not in housing. We just can’t.

But we do – and the worst offense is the creation of a system that encourages welfare dependency, single parency, and all that goes with it. We have a system, as I said before with all the efficiency of the Post Office and all the compassion of the IRS.

 

[boppaid]

Vern, yes, some can succeed. If they are intelligent enough to even embark on a skilled career! Seriously. But, yes, some people do. Should they? Should a single parent work 40 hours a week, go to school, at the cost that they won’t be there for their children in very important ways? How can they keep abreast of all the goings on in the school? How can they stay INVOLVED in their childrens’ school? How can they be there for their children, physically and emotionally for their children. For the mothers you know…how many children did they have? How many hours a day did they spend with those children? How many times were they in the childrens’ schools? For those women who did it…my question would be…at what cost?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, yes, some can succeed. If they are intelligent enough to even embark on a skilled career!

I wish you could meet some of our CNAs – Einstiens, they are not. But with determination, hard work and coaching, they can make it.

Seriously. But, yes, some people do. Should they? Should a single parent work 40 hours a week, go to school, at the cost that they won’t be there for their children in very important ways?

As opposed to setting a bad example for their children by not working their way out of poverty? As opposed to teaching their children that welfare is a way of life?

Yes. Single parents should work their way out, and in the process set an example and inculcate in their children a set of values that includes hard work, valuing education, and being responsible for one’s own actions.

How can they keep abreast of all the goings on in the school? How can they stay INVOLVED in their childrens’ school? How can they be there for their children, physically and emotionally for their children. For the mothers you know…how many children did they have? How many hours a day did they spend with those children? How many times were they in the childrens’ schools? For those women who did it…my question would be…at what cost?

Cost? Say rather, benefit. The children see their parents working hard. They see the benefits of education. They learn values that will stand them in good stead later in life.

And their mothers are just as involved with them as if they were home 24 hours a day, staring at the walls with nothing to do.

 

[boppaid]

Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. We are so far apart on this spectrum, it isn’t funny! We value different things, for sure.