Author Topic: Poor Folks are Victims  (Read 99310 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #350 on: March 20, 2015, 10:38:53 AM »

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

StashDaddy, I agree with just about everything you've posted so far, and believe that anyone can be successful in America IF you're willing to work for it...but please for Christ precious love it's McDonalds...Mc...Donalds...Mc Mc Mc...NOT "Mac".  A weird statistic through personal experiences, 100% of the people who say "Mac"Donalds are African American, can anyone explain how "Mc" became "Mac"!?  This drives me total insane!

Because their signature sandwich is a Big Mac.  I think it's relatively easy for people not to pay attention to the actual spelling, because when they go there, they don't see a big "McDonalds", they see the golden arches. 

It bugs me, too, but it's completely understandable.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #351 on: March 20, 2015, 11:34:38 AM »
Robert Bell et al,

The answers to your questions are, in my experience, love and abuse.  Recall that the client grew up in foster care.  A child who grows up in care (who is not adopted) typically experiences multiple placements and disruptions, as many as ten or twelve in their eighteen years. They enter adulthood desperate for love, connection, family, yet without any of the skills that make it possible for them to create those things in positive, sustainable ways.  So, the client meets a man who says he loves her, and gives her all the things she's longed for all her life--attention, affection, a sense of belonging. Of course she has a baby with him!  She's trying to create the family she's always wanted!  At some point, usually before the baby is born, he becomes abusive and the client gets out of the relationship.  She has the baby and avoids any contact with father, including child support (BTW, there are no "social services lawyers" available to women in these situations, at least in my state), because she doesn't want more trouble and because he has no money anyway.

And then she tries again to get the love and family she needs, with another man.

You can't reason with people with this kind of information because they are just so hateful.  Nobody cares that people in these situations are nearly 100% suffering from mental illnesses.  They just say "Screw you.  Bootstraps."

fields

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #352 on: March 20, 2015, 11:56:57 AM »
Moneycat,
I think it's really difficult for people who have lived a protected life to understand what people like my client experience.  No amount of "bootstraps" is going to make any difference. You cannot reason or educate people out of their emotional needs.

fields

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #353 on: March 20, 2015, 12:13:35 PM »
Cathy, you raise a good point. There ARE people who have made good choices despite having had very difficult childhood experiences.  There's been a lot of research to try and determine why they are able to (ie, are resilient) when most others have not. Some key factors have been identified but as far as I know few programs have successfully built resilience in struggling children and families thus far.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #354 on: March 26, 2015, 09:30:02 AM »
Moneycat,
I think it's really difficult for people who have lived a protected life to understand what people like my client experience.  No amount of "bootstraps" is going to make any difference. You cannot reason or educate people out of their emotional needs.

And you can't pay them out of those either...

Imho society should focus on the kids and directly invest in them via pre-school, schools, healthy food, sports etc and foster parents if things go downhill too far. Preferrably before another child is damaged for life.

There is no way xyz more EUR or USD per month is curing the mental and emotional issues on the bottom of a lot of troubled lifes of adults.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #355 on: March 26, 2015, 09:35:24 AM »
Personally, I continue to find it very surprising that MoneyCat assumes that everybody who has made good choices has an easy, leisurely, "protected" life. Newsflash: Just because you make good choices such as not having six children when you can't afford one child, doesn't mean you have an easy, fantastic life. Your life could still suck a lot. Making good choices can help make your life better, but it doesn't guarantee an easy life.

+1

A lot of people think having your shit together is proof of you having had it easy. Just like not being in debt is evidence of you being 'lucky'.

I remember a poster over in a discussion on un-mustachian families telling how his parents always tell him how easy he had it and how he just 'can't understand' because unlike his parents he's not addicted to any drug...

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #356 on: March 26, 2015, 09:48:50 AM »
Cathy, you raise a good point. There ARE people who have made good choices despite having had very difficult childhood experiences.  There's been a lot of research to try and determine why they are able to (ie, are resilient) when most others have not. Some key factors have been identified but as far as I know few programs have successfully built resilience in struggling children and families thus far.

Perry preschool comes to mind. Unfortunately few politicians (or NGOs) are willing to invest a dollar today to save society seven dollars in twenty years.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4675
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #357 on: March 27, 2015, 01:27:26 PM »
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Quote
I have only my data point, no actual statistics, but I disagree with your first statement.  I identify as a feminist, and I don't think people "are incapable of making their own choices."

I didn't say that all feminists believe that. I said that feminists generally tend to believe...

You cannot deny that it is a mainstream feminist position to claim that the primary reason why few women are in STEM fields etc. is because of discrimination rather than internal choices and actions.
Given that those who are feminists are telling you that you are wrong and feminists don't think that way, chances are, you are wrong. 
I am in STEM field and I spoke to a professor about going forward, a male professor if that matters.  And he flat out said to get where he was, he needed to be in the top 10%, but for me as a woman, I'd need to be in top 2%.  There is a lot of research into the field of psychology, specifically social psychology and how our cultures effect us and our behavior.
 For example, a university had two online courses, one run by a male professor, one by a female.  In each of those courses, half the students thought the professor was male and the other thought the professor was female.  It was one of the best designed research experiments.  And guess what, male and female alike judged the professor who they thought was female to be a worst instructor, no matter the actual gender of the professor. 
You want to ignore data because it makes you feel better, but that does not mean the data does not exists. Yes, I want men and women judges equally, but we don't do that here.  And pretending that that we do shows a lot of ignorance.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4675
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #358 on: March 27, 2015, 01:30:22 PM »
Quote
You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men.

I never said that women commit more domestic violence than men. You have lied about this multiple times despite my correcting you each time. I said that domestic violence is not a gendered phenomenon and there is approximate gender parity (i.e. it is close to 50/50 male/female perpetrators).

I also did not cite "only one source that was not a primary source", which is another lie on your part. I cited a collection of 200+ studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

As well as Statistics Canada figures (which is a primary source):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

A specific study with an 11,000 sample size (which is a primary source): http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

And a newspaper article that discusses British government statistics (those statistics are also a primary source):
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

You have continued to lie and argue in bad faith and claim that these are "MRA hatchet jobs" - which is incredibly dishonest of you.

Quote
But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

You have lied multiple times, made logically invalid arguments, and repeatedly make personal attacks. I have criticized the merit (namely, the lack thereof) of your arguments, as who you are is completely irrelevant in an online discussion. Only what you say is relevant.

Even here, you continue to lie about my arguments. I am not saying that "women commit domestic violence almost as much as men do, therefore feminism is wrong."

I am simply saying, which was my original point from the start and still is, that there are many feminist positions and claims that are not equivalent to "women and men should be treated equally" - one of which is the claim that domestic violence is gendered (men = abusers, women = victims). Which is why it is false for you to say that "if someone believes men and women should be treated equally, they are a feminist".

That is what I have been saying all along, and it would remain true even if it was proven beyond doubt that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men.
You really don't seem to understand the definition of primary source.  A newspaper is not a primary source, even if they use data from a primary source.  Using data from a primary source, is called a secondary source.
ETA: You also don't seem to understand the information posted in some of your sources.  Stating that there is reciprocal violence does not equal both genders have equal rates of domestic violence.  If someone attacks me, and I defend myself it is reciprocal violence, however, the attacked does matter.  The fact that someone defends themselves does not mean they were not the victim of the attack. 
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 01:33:35 PM by Gin1984 »

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #359 on: March 27, 2015, 01:35:36 PM »
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?
It's worth pointing out that there is a lot of resistance to teaching kids how to control their reproductive health and an awful lot of social pressure to keep unwanted pregnancies from groups who are nowhere to be found when it's time to care for the newborn. Bad choices shouldn't be celebrated but nor should they be removed from their context so they can be ridiculed in isolation.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #360 on: March 27, 2015, 01:57:32 PM »
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 04:18:43 PM by MoneyCat »

enigmaT120

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #361 on: March 27, 2015, 04:12:34 PM »
You missed the one where Jesus said you can't worship both God and Mammon.  I can't get over the crop of modern politicians who claim to be Christians but also claim to revere the book Atlas Shrugged. 

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #362 on: March 27, 2015, 04:26:11 PM »
You missed the one where Jesus said you can't worship both God and Mammon.  I can't get over the crop of modern politicians who claim to be Christians but also claim to revere the book Atlas Shrugged.

Good call.

Quote
Matthew 6:24:
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

In my own case, I don't really want to be wealthy for the sake of having a lot of money.  I want to be independent so I can live my life the way it is meant to be lived: Helping people, doing good deeds, creating instead of destroying.  Greed is a horrible thing and it makes people stop seeing other people as human beings.  Pope Francis has spoken about this issue of how people are treating their fellow human beings like they are disposable trash.  It's wrong.

SwordGuy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
    • Flipping Fayetteville
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #363 on: March 29, 2015, 05:52:00 PM »
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?
It's worth pointing out that there is a lot of resistance to teaching kids how to control their reproductive health and an awful lot of social pressure to keep unwanted pregnancies from groups who are nowhere to be found when it's time to care for the newborn. Bad choices shouldn't be celebrated but nor should they be removed from their context so they can be ridiculed in isolation.
You are quite right on those points.  Sadly, I'm not allowed to flog people who cause that problem and they are quite impervious to facts.

That means that, until that problem can be solved, we need to find other ways to teach kids what they need to know.  It starts with each of us not standing silently by and adding wisdom to discussions whenever possible.

cavewoman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
  • Age: 32
  • I'm a woman who likes caves
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #364 on: March 29, 2015, 09:46:01 PM »
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #365 on: March 30, 2015, 10:23:42 AM »
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!

Tony H

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #366 on: April 07, 2015, 07:05:01 PM »

It's your tone not your conclusion. It's unneeded. Maybe try having a discussion without having to through in your little parentheticals.  There's no need for it. Maybe even leave out the politics. Your assertions also just seem silly. Poor people don't want decent food, really? Drawing the conclusion that no grocery store means poor people don't want one makes no sense. Maybe that don't build it b/c it's higher crime areas, or poorer people will spend less, or ... Those are just as valid as your conclusion. It's hard for me to imagine that you have ever actually worked with people in theses circumstances or have been there yourself.

Well, if you want an example, I once knew a single woman with 3 kids.  She lived within 3 blocks of the grocery store that I shopped at so she didn't even need the car that she had to get there.  I knew her because I was dating and trying to impress her mother.

Long story short.  The mother told me that the water line to her daughter's washer was leaking.  Wanting to impress the mother I offered to see if I could fix it.  I went over and the spigot was leaking because the hose was too loose.  HUH?? This gal was going to college on the government dollar.  She couldn't figure that out?  BTW, no "Thank you." after I tightened the hose.

Then I noticed that her lawn in the backyard was very long.  I offered the use of my electric lawn mower because her mower was not working.  She proceeded to run over my power cord.  $30 for the cord out of my pocket and she didn't even say, "I'm sorry."

While this was going on, I of course saw inside the house.  Five(5) party size bags of different chips on the living room coffee table, open with chips all over the place.  On the table and floor.  What a mess!  The daughter in the course of all this told me that she just didn't get enough money from the government to feed her three children well.  I said "Gee that is too bad.".

I walked away from mother and daughter and never looked back. 

This woman didn't want anything but for someone or something to take care of her and her kids. 


Tony H

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #367 on: April 07, 2015, 07:49:19 PM »
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.

I guess I'm not Christian.  I thought I was but according to you I ain't.  Oh well...  On a personal level, I am and always will be willing to help someone that is trying to help them self.   I dig my heels in when the force of government forces me to go against my personal beliefs.  Doesn't do me much good but I try.  :)

I could go on and on about people who don't even try to take care of them selves but I won't as YOU won't hear me.  Try reading the whole bible instead of just bits and pieces of it.  Read it by the chapter instead of by verse.  It would do you well!

Now as far as Aynn Rand....   She was trying to show the evils of socialism and communism in the 40s and 50s.  She grew up in Russia and escaped as a teenager.  She was trying to show the evils of that sort of government.  She actually does a pretty good job of that aspect of what she tried to say though in the doing so she went a little overboard to prove her points, just as you are doing in your quotes from the Bible... 

I suggest that you both reread the Bible in total and learn about Aynn Rand's life story and then reread Aynn Rand.  It will be eye opening on both scores!

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #368 on: April 07, 2015, 08:24:28 PM »
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.

I guess I'm not Christian.  I thought I was but according to you I ain't.  Oh well...  On a personal level, I am and always will be willing to help someone that is trying to help them self.   I dig my heels in when the force of government forces me to go against my personal beliefs.  Doesn't do me much good but I try.  :)

I could go on and on about people who don't even try to take care of them selves but I won't as YOU won't hear me.  Try reading the whole bible instead of just bits and pieces of it.  Read it by the chapter instead of by verse.  It would do you well!




I think Moneycat's point is, it's not according to him, it's according to the Bible.

By the way, "The Lord helps those who help themselves," which seems to be your motto, does not come from the Bible.  Jesus seemed to be particularly interested precisely in helping those who could not help themselves.

I would be interested, though, in your providing some examples where the chapter contradicts the verses cited here.  Do tell.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 08:42:20 PM by Kris »

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #369 on: April 08, 2015, 05:29:25 AM »
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!

This is one of my post FIRE plans. With a working class background of my own I think just the fact that I was able to quit working on somebody else's terms would probably make enough of an impression to get the attention of a smart kid.

cavewoman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
  • Age: 32
  • I'm a woman who likes caves
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #370 on: April 08, 2015, 08:59:29 AM »
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!

This is one of my post FIRE plans. With a working class background of my own I think just the fact that I was able to quit working on somebody else's terms would probably make enough of an impression to get the attention of a smart kid.

Absolutely! In college we had an urban studies class for social work. Social work students generally have a wide variety of socio economic backgrounds. The first day we were asked 'why are you here? Why are you in college when some of your peers are in trouble? What's the difference?"
And the answer was at least one positive adult influence. Parent, teacher, coach, pastor, mentor, whatever. Someone somewhere convinced us we could do something. Occasionally I'll wish I had followed my math skills and gone into a more lucrative career, but most days I'm glad to be in a helping profession. Feels good.


LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #372 on: April 08, 2015, 01:06:04 PM »
Nice cartoon on the topic, even if it is aimed at white privilege and not "rich privilege"

http://boingboing.net/2015/04/08/simple-comic-strip-explains-th.html

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #373 on: April 08, 2015, 01:07:38 PM »
Nice cartoon on the topic, even if it is aimed at white privilege and not "rich privilege"

http://boingboing.net/2015/04/08/simple-comic-strip-explains-th.html
Nice!

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #374 on: April 10, 2015, 01:16:44 PM »
If by victim you mean situational determined I would agree.   Poor folks in Russia, China, Africa, South America were and still are poor primarily due to their situations.  One of those situations is ignorance and laziness but systemic influence is huge.

So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.

And by the way,  if your a single adult male you are pretty much screwed by the welfare system.   No Medicaid for you bud but here is 90 bucks for food this month and you can wait your turn for a bed at the homeless shelter. 

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5083
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #375 on: April 10, 2015, 01:58:59 PM »
Bob, it used to be no medicaid but no more. I have a male single friend that makes less then 20k/year & is on medicaid.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #376 on: April 10, 2015, 03:00:17 PM »
So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.
I dont know when Johnson was, but that today are more poor is more likely because the war on poverty stopped then the other way round. Compared to european countries the US welfare system is at about 100 years back. And of course because the creation of wealth was mainly distributed to the already wealthy.
If you look at e.g. Norway, Finland and Denmark(highest), they have huge taxes and huge welfare system. Result is a more leveled wealth distribution, less really poor (like homeless) and the happiest population on earth (Denmark 1st, Norway 2nd, Finland 7th).
That doesnt mean that a good money distribution and big welfare system is the single key to happiness, but it definitely isnt bad for it.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #377 on: April 10, 2015, 07:49:05 PM »
Bob, it used to be no medicaid but no more. I have a male single friend that makes less then 20k/year & is on medicaid.
Doesn't that depend on which state he is in?

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #378 on: April 11, 2015, 01:22:01 AM »
So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.
I dont know when Johnson was, but that today are more poor is more likely because the war on poverty stopped then the other way round. Compared to european countries the US welfare system is at about 100 years back. And of course because the creation of wealth was mainly distributed to the already wealthy.
If you look at e.g. Norway, Finland and Denmark(highest), they have huge taxes and huge welfare system. Result is a more leveled wealth distribution, less really poor (like homeless) and the happiest population on earth (Denmark 1st, Norway 2nd, Finland 7th).
That doesnt mean that a good money distribution and big welfare system is the single key to happiness, but it definitely isnt bad for it.

I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #379 on: April 11, 2015, 12:35:25 PM »

So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.

 

Maybe in terms of pure numbers there may be more people in poverty today, but in terms of percentages poverty is way down thanks for our nation's social programs.  In 1959, 22% of all Americans were in poverty.  In 2007, that number had dropped to 12.5%.  That's a significant difference.  Before Medicare, 30% of senior citizens were in poverty.  By 2008, that was down to 13.8%. 

Minorities have seen the biggest drops in poverty rates due to America's social safety net.  55% of African Americans were in poverty in 1959 and by 2009 that had dropped to 25.9%.

So, the next time you hear someone say that welfare doesn't work, go give them a good kick in the shin.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #380 on: April 11, 2015, 02:41:21 PM »
I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.
Why do you think it is deliberately obscured? You are talking about Hartz-4, right?
Its all written down in your Bescheid. A single gets about 700€ maximum plus 127€ (last time I looked) health insurance. That btw. should be the same rate you get if you earn the same money through working.
2 person household its 2x120€ rent for example.
And I dont think there is a single country (with a meaningful welfare system) on the whole earth where a single minimum wage earner gets more money then welfare for 4.
Of course Hartz-4 does not not elevate people above the poverty treshold. Again looking at the whole world there is no welfare system that does it, I am quite sure. Apart from where the people are the problem, it does give everyone a warm place and food, even if it is not enough for the "socio cultural minimum" that it is supposed to give. (And here is really a lot of work gone into obscuration and statistical trickery)
Or what did you mean with problem?


Quote
55% of African Americans were in poverty in 1959 and by 2009 that had dropped to 25.9%.
I beg to differ ^^ But with due respect to the "ethnic" problem, I dont think it is fair to compare numbers from before race seggregation (still was 1959, right? But even if not, it was not long ago.) and after. The reason of poverty are more based in race problem that then in welfare problem. I would even go so far to say that it is still the case. We just had a comic on this, right? lol

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #381 on: April 12, 2015, 02:56:50 PM »
I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.
Why do you think it is deliberately obscured? You are talking about Hartz-4, right?
Its all written down in your Bescheid. A single gets about 700€ maximum plus 127€ (last time I looked) health insurance. That btw. should be the same rate you get if you earn the same money through working.
2 person household its 2x120€ rent for example.
And I dont think there is a single country (with a meaningful welfare system) on the whole earth where a single minimum wage earner gets more money then welfare for 4.
Of course Hartz-4 does not not elevate people above the poverty treshold. Again looking at the whole world there is no welfare system that does it, I am quite sure. Apart from where the people are the problem, it does everyone a warm place and food, even if it is not enough for the "socio cultural minimum" that it is supposed to give. (And here is really a lot of work gone into obscuration and statistical trickery)
Or what did you mean with problem?

By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #382 on: April 13, 2015, 12:52:10 AM »
By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?
Its not deliberating obscuring, because the normal politician cannot live on 399€ (+rent etc.).
Also I think you still confuse "existing" with the "socio economic minimum", which broadly means that everyone should be able to do what a normal person does. If flying to the moon is somewhere in the future what everyone does 3 times a year then the s-o min would be that you are able to do it at least once every 2 years.
It is comparative living, as it  it is comparitive poorness. Thats the 60% and that is not mine but international standard.

And if you ask if we want to permanently fund millions of adults: Well, we do. More then ever before. And older then ever before. We fund less children then ever before btw. And we have a "gliding" entry. Every money is earn is subtracted - but not in full. If you earn 500€, then from your Hartz-4 80% of that (after 100€) is substracted. If you want it more gliding, like 50%, then you will have a great moaning because a lot of people more will be eligible - the people who are now considered middle class. (Thanks to statistical trickeries to show that the middle class is not falling apart, you are now middle class slightly above the poverty line).

Hey It's Me

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • Moe's Journal
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #383 on: April 13, 2015, 04:53:46 AM »
If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out.

It's illegal to sell food stamps. However, that doesn't stop it from happening. Part of the reason people still show up at soup kitchens despite the existence of food stamps is that they're selling them so they can buy things that otherwise wouldn't be approved.

As an aside, my neighborhood farmer's market doubles the value when purchasing with food stamps. Since (I'm told) food stamps sell in the range of 50 cents on the dollar, if some not-poor person were willing to act unethically they could get their fancy organic food at a 75% discount.

Stealth wealth is one thing but I admit I would probably be embarrassed to use food stamps.

Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.

The person behind you would very much know that you're using food stamps. the EBT card is kind of a distinct blue, and there is an ID check and a PIN entry required where I'm from for food stamp purchases.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #384 on: April 13, 2015, 05:27:05 AM »
By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?
Its not deliberating obscuring, because the normal politician cannot live on 399€ (+rent etc.).
Also I think you still confuse "existing" with the "socio economic minimum", which broadly means that everyone should be able to do what a normal person does. If flying to the moon is somewhere in the future what everyone does 3 times a year then the s-o min would be that you are able to do it at least once every 2 years.
It is comparative living, as it  it is comparitive poorness. Thats the 60% and that is not mine but international standard.

And if you ask if we want to permanently fund millions of adults: Well, we do. More then ever before. And older then ever before. We fund less children then ever before btw. And we have a "gliding" entry. Every money is earn is subtracted - but not in full. If you earn 500€, then from your Hartz-4 80% of that (after 100€) is substracted. If you want it more gliding, like 50%, then you will have a great moaning because a lot of people more will be eligible - the people who are now considered middle class. (Thanks to statistical trickeries to show that the middle class is not falling apart, you are now middle class slightly above the poverty line).

I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.

Regarding the socio-cultural definition of povery: I do understand the concept, I just happen to disagree. Anything I would define as cultural is cheap as dirt and was well within my means when I lived below the so-called poverty line. Books can be lended for free and bought for cheap, music is cheap, all sorts of Vereine are cheap, museums are cheap for people who can't affird the regular fee, same for public transport, inner European travel can be very cheap if you do it right. I don't think that I need to continue. The real 'poverty' in Germany is one of the spirit and soul. That's why ever increasing money transfers are not going to fix it. It had been very well explained above already. No money in the world would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had in order to feel loved and needed.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #385 on: April 13, 2015, 03:50:59 PM »
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

Quote
No money in the world would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had in order to feel loved and needed.
And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?


But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #386 on: April 13, 2015, 09:33:37 PM »
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

hexdexorex

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 159
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #387 on: April 16, 2015, 03:39:11 PM »
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).

Much of the worlds economic structure is setup to favor those that are on this planet the longest or come from legacy wealth. Those born from parents that make bad decisions start out on the lowest leg of opportunity.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 03:42:18 PM by hexdexorex »

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #388 on: April 16, 2015, 04:51:02 PM »
Much of the worlds economic structure is setup to favor those that are on this planet the longest or come from legacy wealth. Those born from parents that make bad decisions start out on the lowest leg of opportunity.

Yeah, tell me about it.  People who haven't lived it have a really difficult time understanding.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #389 on: April 17, 2015, 01:00:10 AM »
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).


How exactly do I hold the child responsible if I'm willing to pay for family sized appartments, good schools, afternoon activities in those schools, mandatory checkups of children from troubled families, mandatory and good preschools, breakfast and lunches, etc? What I would not do (if I had the choice) is increase the cash budget of bad decision makers for each child they have. This simply creates an incentive to make even more bad decisions (have more children). As a high earner my objection to this is more rational than emotional, as a low earner, not having children because I could not afford them, I would be livid. And coming from a working class (emphasis on working, not on class) backgroung myself I could just as well tell everybody else: 'you just don't understand...'

hexdexorex

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 159
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #390 on: April 17, 2015, 10:23:02 AM »
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).


How exactly do I hold the child responsible if I'm willing to pay for family sized appartments, good schools, afternoon activities in those schools, mandatory checkups of children from troubled families, mandatory and good preschools, breakfast and lunches, etc? What I would not do (if I had the choice) is increase the cash budget of bad decision makers for each child they have. This simply creates an incentive to make even more bad decisions (have more children). As a high earner my objection to this is more rational than emotional, as a low earner, not having children because I could not afford them, I would be livid. And coming from a working class (emphasis on working, not on class) backgroung myself I could just as well tell everybody else: 'you just don't understand...'

I think there is massive agreement on making sure welfare type money is spent on the right things. The issue comes down to enforce ability and who decides what is wrong and right?

When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue. It might not be the right fix but it is a good temp solution till a proper regulatory structure is setup to enforce where welfare money goes. Honestly if schools just give kids in those food insecure house holds lunch and dinner everyday that's a great start....and a huge investment in those kids climbing the economic ladder.

So, yes the most rational thing is people that cant afford kids don't have kids, but the world isn't rational. Once society lets these families have kids, part of raising that child because societies responsibility. The proper economic thing to do is to setup programs to educate parents, and lift their status economically / or education level so they wont have children they cannot afford.

Personally growing up my mother raised three kids below the poverty line as a single parent. We never relied on public assistance, and had many friends that took advantage of it through loops holes. Is this abuse discusting? Yes. But now that have a high salary job I see many of my friends using tax loopholes to get around paying tens of thousands of dollars in tax. This IMO is more disgusting and has a much much bigger impact on the federal budget.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 10:35:00 AM by hexdexorex »

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #391 on: April 17, 2015, 11:25:51 AM »

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue. It might not be the right fix but it is a good temp solution till a proper regulatory structure is setup to enforce where welfare money goes. Honestly if schools just give kids in those food insecure house holds lunch and dinner everyday that's a great start....and a huge investment in those kids climbing the economic ladder.
Actually free school meals is the most effective thing you can do. Its not only cost effective (because you can cook a lot of meals at once), but also has a lot of "side effects" like children go to school more often, learn better and dsiturb others less (because they are not hungry) and so on.
Of course this statistic is from the really poor countries. Thats why so many of them have adopted the free school meal policy even with their limited money. In same cases school attendence increased dramatically just because of that. Which also tells a lot about the conditions the parents must have to face every day...

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #392 on: April 21, 2015, 07:48:23 PM »
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first.

Do y'all actually know what the definition of "food insecurity" is? It basically means that at some point in the last year you wanted food but didn't have enough money to immediately go buy it. If you've ever said to yourself "man, this organic produce is too expensive! I'll just skip serving a vegetable with this meal" then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever thought about taking a trip to the grocery store but then decided to wait until payday, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever tried to buy a snack from a vending machine but couldn't because you didn't have enough spare change in your pocket that day, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) Take a look at the question and grading scale on this survey used to assess food insecurity, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You see that ridiculous "21%" statistic quoted above and think "OMG, that's huge!" But that's because its not a real measure of anything important. Actual persistent lack of food, which the government calls "very low food security," is closer to 5% of households (or less).

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4675
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #393 on: April 21, 2015, 08:13:11 PM »
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first.

Do y'all actually know what the definition of "food insecurity" is? It basically means that at some point in the last year you wanted food but didn't have enough money to immediately go buy it. If you've ever said to yourself "man, this organic produce is too expensive! I'll just skip serving a vegetable with this meal" then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever thought about taking a trip to the grocery store but then decided to wait until payday, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever tried to buy a snack from a vending machine but couldn't because you didn't have enough spare change in your pocket that day, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) Take a look at the question and grading scale on this survey used to assess food insecurity, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You see that ridiculous "21%" statistic quoted above and think "OMG, that's huge!" But that's because its not a real measure of anything important. Actual persistent lack of food, which the government calls "very low food security," is closer to 5% of households (or less).
Actually your statement was grossly exaggerated.  They are talked about needing food and going without based on that. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #394 on: April 21, 2015, 08:23:37 PM »
They are talked about needing food and going without based on that.

Yeah, one day in a year. Even if they're drowning in food the other 364 days of the year they still count as "food-insecure," and that flawed way of measuring inflates the statistics. Those skewed statistics, in turn, lead to bad public policy. After all, the solution to the problem of somebody going hungry because he had to take unpaid time off one day which caused his paycheck to be short is very, very different from the solution to the problem of a family trying to subsist for months on end on nothing but peanut butter sandwiches.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4675
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #395 on: April 21, 2015, 08:29:02 PM »
They are talked about needing food and going without based on that.

Yeah, one day in a year. Even if they're drowning in food the other 364 days of the year they still count as "food-insecure," and that flawed way of measuring inflates the statistics. Those skewed statistics, in turn, lead to bad public policy. After all, the solution to the problem of somebody going hungry because he had to take unpaid time off one day which caused his paycheck to be short is very, very different from the solution to the problem of a family trying to subsist for months on end on nothing but peanut butter sandwiches.
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.  Also that link is a limited survey which is used when the others are not able to be used and it has been shown to get a reliable result compared to those other surveys.  Food insecure is not deciding to not get a certain organic produce.  And personally, I would consider that if one day off caused someone to go hungry, that is very insecure indeed.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #396 on: April 21, 2015, 08:58:43 PM »
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.

No, they would report "sometimes."

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9183
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #397 on: April 21, 2015, 09:22:29 PM »

From http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf, the source given by http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html (which in turn was the source for
Quote
"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

There are likely to be slight differences because the chart is for 2013 while the posted quote refers to 2012.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4675
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #398 on: April 21, 2015, 09:23:52 PM »
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.

No, they would report "sometimes."
Actually no, most people don't.  That is why one would use a three point scale like that. 

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: Germany
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #399 on: April 21, 2015, 10:59:10 PM »
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first,

And you need to evalute which ways of 'throwing money' would help, which would do nothing more than make the one doing the throwing feel good and which would do serious harm on top of not helping. If the reason for a family being food insecure is an alcohol or drug habit of the adults and you respond by 'throwing money', the results of this would only benefit the liquor industry or dealer. Several children from addicted parents report that days when the parents had some cash on their hands were the very worst.