973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 8:00:35 GMT -5
Another thing to consider about welfare - I've never seen a Shanty Town in the USA. OK, I don't travel much so I've never actually seen one in other countries except for on-line (or in stories from movies/books). That said, I've never seen or heard tell of a modern ShantyTown that lasted any length of time in the US. How come our big Cities don't have thousands of the poor living in shanty towns on their outskirts? I'd think it's our welfare system that keeps the poorest people from having to build their own shelters. I suspect the violence in Shanty Towns far surpasses the violence in places where the poor aren't forced to entirely fend for themselves. Doesn't that improve the quality of live for everyone (poor, middle class, and rich)? There have been shanty towns. I can think of three in NJ alone. The most famous lasted for a few years before the state felt it was too embarassing. www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/camden_says_homeless_haven_of.html
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Aug 1, 2012 8:06:31 GMT -5
Because you don't want to punish children for their parents' mistakes?
I thought you had empathy for poor children because you were one? What happened to that?
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 8:06:34 GMT -5
Swamp, are you new? First we kill the lazy poor people, then the hardworking poor people, then old people, then SAHMs, then working moms, then government employees. Have you all never read P&M? The answer is always more guns and ammo!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,885
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2012 8:06:44 GMT -5
The problem with moms on welfare is that if you earn below a certain level you are allowed to claim multiple benefits - WIC funds, child care funds, section 8 funds, etc. But if you start earning more and edge up over that cut off point, you loose those extra benefits. So you are, in fact, better off financially in the short term if you make sure you keep your earnings under that cut off point. This does not encourage people to work harder, work more hours, or try to qualify for a better job.
This has been pointed out multiple times before here and I think I can safely say that everyone is in agreement that the system is not well designed and needs a major overhaul. I think most of us have agreed that a phased in system would be better, so that moms can continue to qualify for reduced benefits as they start earning their way out of poverty.
As it currently stands, if a mom earns more in benefits and wages working 30 hours per week than she does working 50 hours per week, there is no financial incentive for her to work harder. Plus if she works 30 hours per week she gets more time with her kids.
Don't complain about the welfare moms sucking at the government trough. Complain about the idiot bureaucrats who designed and manage this idiotic system.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Aug 1, 2012 8:10:37 GMT -5
Exactly.
And Lone, one could also argue that the old person had their entire life to work and save...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 15:55:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 8:12:32 GMT -5
Exactly. And Lone, one could also argue that the old person had their entire life to work and save... Well, that is where my mom is now. She is in a home and had saved her whole life. Now, i wonder why she bothered? She has enough assets to get her through a few years, then she will be bankrupt. So, why bother to save in the first place because the state is going to take care of you either way.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 8:19:59 GMT -5
Because you don't want to punish children for their parents' mistakes? I thought you had empathy for poor children because you were one? What happened to that? I also don't want old people freezing to death. A mother with children, who is getting subsidized childcare has a better chance. I would think you would recognize that. There are lots of programs for low income seniors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 15:55:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 8:23:37 GMT -5
Well, that is where my mom is now. She is in a home and had saved her whole life. Now, i wonder why she bothered? She has enough assets to get her through a few years, then she will be bankrupt. So, why bother to save in the first place because the state is going to take care of you either way. My mom gave away all her money, then had to move in with relative who she almost bankrupted. So, how should the limited assistance funds be divided? But, the good thing is that because she has funds, she does have some options in terms of having a private room or stuff like that. I really don't know what happens to people who don't have money.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 1, 2012 8:28:44 GMT -5
<<< mom earns more in benefits and wages working 30 hours per week >>> <<< subsidized childcare >>> <<< lots of programs for low income seniors. >>> ...so, since a plurality of crimes are committed by 18-40yo males, would we agree that wealth disparity within the poverty ranks can lead to envy, which can lead to violence?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 15:55:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 8:31:27 GMT -5
Violence is a mindset. Violence is a moral choice. Those who engage do so because they feel entitled to act out or take something that they did not earn or work for.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 8:37:50 GMT -5
There are lots of programs for low income seniors. I don't know about your area, but around here those programs are drying up, fast. All the resources are getting streched not just the ones for the seniors. They also have a heck of a lot more control of their life than a 4 year old does.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 8:41:55 GMT -5
While we are talking about subsidized childcare and section 8 housing. In the NJ area section 8 housing has a 7 year waiting list if you got on it. I say that because they stopped putting names on the list a couple of years ago. They just have way more people who qualify than money.
Subsidized childcare has a rule is that the person to get on the list has to put their child in the childcare center paying the regular price while they wait. The problem is that if you can afford the $500 a week for childcare you don't qualify probably for the subsidized care.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,885
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2012 9:01:30 GMT -5
"Subsidized childcare has a rule is that the person to get on the list has to put their child in the childcare center paying the regular price while they wait. The problem is that if you can afford the $500 a week for childcare you don't qualify probably for the subsidized care. "
You know, we could do what most European countries do and provide childcare for all working moms.
Oh wait, silly me, not only does that smack of socialism, I forgot that only solidly middle class moms ought to be able to procreate, all the unwashed loser poor people need to be sterilized so they aren't dragging this country down with their criminal offspring.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 9:02:04 GMT -5
But, the good thing is that because she has funds, she does have some options in terms of having a private room or stuff like that. I really don't know what happens to people who don't have money. One of the things I don't understand are programs where a person gets paid for caring for a relative. When I was growing up it was assumed that relatives cared for each other. I have heard of it also but only for caring for a severly disabled adult child or a parent. I think the theory was that since the people doing the care giving would have to give up their job to do it they were putting them in a home which the taxpayers had to pay for. this way the person lives at home and the caregiver gets paid to do it instead. Truthfully I know one person being "paid" to take care of their adult daughter. They have been on a list for a group home type thing for years and would really like for them to get in it. The way things are going in this state makes it almost impossible to get in until they die though.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 1, 2012 9:04:34 GMT -5
"Subsidized childcare has a rule is that the person to get on the list has to put their child in the childcare center paying the regular price while they wait. The problem is that if you can afford the $500 a week for childcare you don't qualify probably for the subsidized care. " You know, we could do what most European countries do and provide childcare for all working moms. Oh wait, silly me, not only does that smack of socialism, I forgot that only solidly middle class moms ought to be able to procreate, all the unwashed loser poor people need to be sterilized so they aren't dragging this country down with their criminal offspring. You really are silly! The YM rule now is that only people so rich that nothing can ever make them have financial problems should procreate. Then everyone can start complaining about how the price of everything has gone through the roof since now there won't be anyone to work lower end jobs like couter person or cashier at the grocer store.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 1, 2012 9:17:55 GMT -5
It's a state issue whether someone caring for a disabled parent "gets paid". Some states have programs that pay relatives to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Others do not.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 1, 2012 9:35:50 GMT -5
"One of the things I don't understand are programs where a person gets paid for caring for a relative. When I was growing up it was assumed that relatives cared for each other."
I don't have problem with this in most instances. In a lot of cases someone can't just quit work and take care of a relative. This at least keeps the elderly out of a nursing home and allows the person caring for them to get a little money for doing it.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 1, 2012 9:59:00 GMT -5
Violence is a mindset. Violence is a moral choice. Those who engage do so because they feel entitled to act out or take something that they did not earn or work for. That's not always the case... Milgram did a nifty little experiment about obedience to authority figures which illustrated some very scary characteristics of Human Nature. The violence doled out by his subjects didn't necessarily match up with his subjects moral codes, very few of his subjects were 'brave' or 'moral' or 'self actualized' enough to NOT follow thru on the 'orders' given to them... An Authority figure could be someone you look up to, or admire, or fear... On another line of thinking about human behavior: I do think that living with violence tends to make a person function as though violence is a normal part of everyday life. In that it may be 'expected' or 'scripted' into one's daily association with other people. Deep down inside you don't like it, but you also don't feel that there's anything you can do about it. All of this comes down to people feeling (maybe uncousiously to them) that they have no 'power' or choice. So, they do what they are told by the people in their lives they've given their 'power' or 'choice' too.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 1, 2012 10:06:55 GMT -5
One of the things I don't understand are programs where a person gets paid for caring for a relative. When I was growing up it was assumed that relatives cared for each other. What quality of care can someone get from a relative who has to stop working (no more income) so they can care for the relative? (the caretaker may need to leave the patient unattended to work which I can see would lead to horrendeous cases of abuse - people tied to beds, locked in rooms, in adequete sanitation....) For example, from last week's local newspaper - a Grandmother (and her sister) will be caring full time for an 18 month old grandson who is in a vegatative state. The child requires 24 hour care. The mother of the child died from a gunshot would when she was 8 months pregnant - the baby wasn't hurt by the gunshot - but did suffer from lack of oxygen when it happened. I'm assuming that niether Grandma or her Sister will be able work full time jobs if they need to provide 24 hour care for this child. I would think this child would be in for some horrible home care if his caretakers didn't recieve some sort of benefit to stay home and care for him. It may be less expensive on the state to send him home than to keep him in a hospital or nursing home...
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 1, 2012 10:47:15 GMT -5
My grandmother spent her teenaged years in a poor neighborhood living with an aunt who didn't give a rat's ass about her. But since most of her friends came from intact families, and there was less economic segregation back then, she was surrounded by kids who were actually being parented and was able to figure out how to better herself. She also had the benefit of growing up in a culture where hard work, sacrifice and long term thinking were valued and those values were reinforced in music and movies.
But once we created a welfare system that paid idiots to breed, the number of children not being properly parented skyrocketed, and when most of the kids in your peer group are emotional orphans, it becomes a lot harder to figure out how to become a decent, self sufficient person. Add to that a popular culture where the solution to nearly every problem is to hop in bed with someone or blow something up, and even competent parents have a tough row to hoe.
Like it or not, the same things that lead to poverty -- lack of long term thinking, disempowerment, laziness, selfishness-- also lead to violence, and all of these things are going to be much more common when large numbers of children have parents who are not up to the task. When parents pay for private school or a house in swank school district, what they are really paying for is good parents.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 1, 2012 11:33:13 GMT -5
Not always but it's a step in the right direction. Just like throwing money at poor schools does nothing for those kids because of their parents, rich parents who just throw money at their kids can end up with kids with no values as well. No moral compass, so to speak.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 1, 2012 12:36:45 GMT -5
NPR did a show on Milgram - I think they even interviewed a few people who took part in the experiment = or maybe they quoted from interviews with subjects. I know they talked to relatives of people involved.
We do what we're told...
ADDED: there was some lasting mental anguish for some of the people involved = they did what they did but then couldn't deal with what they had done cause it was something they believed they NEVER would have done.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Aug 1, 2012 12:52:13 GMT -5
We do what we're told...
I just don't get that. I mean, I can understand if you're under duress of some kind - "do this or die" or "do this or your baby gets it" - but simply because someone is in authority? And not even REAL authority, just perceived "this person is running an experiment so it must be a good idea to do this" authority.
Scary.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,237
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 1, 2012 13:16:48 GMT -5
It's believed to be an evolutionary leftover in our brains. Humans survived better in groups and to survive you needed to cooperate and follow the leader. We're programmed to automatically respond to anyone we consider to be in "authority".
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 1, 2012 13:22:32 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't say programmed - but we definitely have an 'autopilot' for alot of stuff - like if someone gives you something you feel obligated/good will towards that person. It's overcoming the 'auto pilot' that's sometimes difficult but we can all do it (atleast I like to think we can). But, back to the topic of this discussion. Maybe this plays into the violence part of poverty.. when the 'authority' figures in people's lives are in their home, or on their block or in their neighborhood - and maybe an authority figure with a cruel bent. It's often said that those in poverty tend to live in 'isolation' - which would make it quite easy for someone to be 'incharge'.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 1, 2012 13:32:00 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't say programmed - but we definitely have an 'autopilot' for alot of stuff - like if someone gives you something you feel obligated/good will towards that person. It's overcoming the 'auto pilot' that's sometimes difficult but we can all do it (atleast I like to think we can). But, back to the topic of this discussion. Maybe this plays into the violence part of poverty.. when the 'authority' figures in people's lives are in their home, or on their block or in their neighborhood - and maybe an authority figure with a cruel bent. It's often said that those in poverty tend to live in 'isolation' - which would make it quite easy for someone to be 'incharge'. ...or even take it one step further... the redistribution of wealth debate (one which is oftentimes disagreeable) could be applied to a redistribution of power/authority debate... in that those who perpetrate crimes are actually engaging in their own social justice endeavor... an "I've not been given my fair share of autonomy and value, so I will reclaim it by fiat" approach...
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,885
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2012 14:26:24 GMT -5
We do what we're told... I just don't get that. I mean, I can understand if you're under duress of some kind - "do this or die" or "do this or your baby gets it" - but simply because someone is in authority? And not even REAL authority, just perceived "this person is running an experiment so it must be a good idea to do this" authority. Scary. I remember watching one experiment about this type of behavior, where they thought they were delivering high voltage shocks to someone in another room. Most of the people did it, even when they heard the person screaming, because the guy in the white coat told them to do it. One guy even told the guy running the experiment "I'm doing this but you're the one responsible because you're telling me to do it." Kind of explains a little why all the German soldiers went along with the Nazis.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 1, 2012 15:26:39 GMT -5
If memory serves, this experiment was done in the 50's or early 60's when people were a lot more programmed. The shocking results of this experiment combined with WW2 being a recent memory caused a movement to question authority, which is a good thing.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Aug 1, 2012 15:39:44 GMT -5
If memory serves, this experiment was done in the 50's or early 60's when people were a lot more programmed.
What does that mean?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 1, 2012 15:45:50 GMT -5
I think she means that were were more culturally programmed to respect and listen to authority figures. It was prior to the counter culture movement, civil rights movement, etc., where we started having more distrust of police, politicians, and whatnot.
|
|