I Miss Bush

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

What you think is necessary to survival, and what can be shown/proved to be necessary to your survival are very different matters. As Sam pointed out: it is not government's job to provide each individual with a car. It is government's job to ensure that there is a functioning public transport system, accessible to all and with routes that aren't profitable given subsidies to make sure no one community is left unserved.

It is also not government's job to ensure that I personally have a PC in my house and a broadband connection. It is however, in my opinion, government's job to ensure that there are public terminals, in libraries for example, available to all. It is also government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren are given access to such technology in order that they are not disadvantaged by a lack of computer literacy.


To me, it seems obvious that it is in my nation's interest for as many people as possible to be able to participate in society and the economy. It is of social value that even the least resourced of us has a standard of living above and beyond abject and hopeless poverty. It is of economic value that those people who are at risk of being excluded from the economy altogether, be helped to retain an economic presence. So, for example, foodstamps make a lot less sense to me than a cash benefit payment which allows the recipient to 'spend' within the economy, without being effectively coralled into a closed and deeply uncompetetive, separate tier of that economy.


As a socialist, I believe in a very basic premise: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Now obviously, in practice life is not that simple. People are not that simple. People do not always do what is best for themselves, or the rest of us. And without an impetus to work, or contribute, good intentions eventually dissolve into selfishness. Badly handled, assistance can exacerbate distress, or sanction selfishness to the detriment of the whole.

At the end of the day it is a matter of balance and judegement. Weighing up the social and economic harm of having large swathes of underclass alienated from the mainstream of the economy and engaged instead in a kind of sub-economy, from which are drawn few or no taxes, and which carry little or no consumer weight. Essentially, weighing up the harm of allowing people and families to fail to such an extent that they are no longer able to function as effective members of society. At the same time, weighing up the social and economic harm of giving assistance, of sanctioning a self-selected exclusion from the active economy, by a few, in order to prevent the unwanted exclusion of a much greater group (imo).

Most western countries, the US included, have got a handle on the idea that they don't actually want large numbers of people starving on the streets. It is not desirable that we have children chasing tourists in the train stations, begging for coin. So, to varying degrees we implement safety nets. But because we wish to deter as many people as possible from seeking those safety nets, we make the assistance offered unpalatable and humiliating.

This seems a retrograde step to me. If the assistance on offer is unpalatable and humliating, then those who have no choice but to seek it for long periods can become psychologically damaged by the experience. Not only have they become excluded by circumstance from the economy, but they have also become excluded from mainstream society and culture. Far from encouraging greater levels of effort on their part, this is actually more likely to compound the problem: their life becomes demotivating, depressing, and deskilling. The ritual humilliations involved in accessing such assistance serve to damage self-confidence, increase the social gaps, and entrench the individual (and even whole families) in inactivty. It makes them less likely to get through an interview successfully, both because they are less able to finance jobsearch, travel, interview clothes and so on, but also because a lack of self-confidence and self-worth do not make for good interviews.

You said at one point in this discussion ( I think) that the answer is not to throw money at the problem. I see things a little differently. I see the past twenty-five years as a race to the bottom. Lower and lower benefits, harsher and harsher conditions, greater and greater levels of approbation. We have long since dispensed with the carrot and have been using bigger and bigger sticks. Yet, no matter how harsh we make life on welfare; no matter how humiliating we make the process; no matter how pitful the sum given; no matter how many people we exclude from assistance, the need has not diminished.

In the early 19th century, Britain altered its approach to dealing with poverty. Poor relief, once given to families out in the community, along with wage top-ups given to certain workers during periods of need (the speenhamland system) were scrapped. Instead relief would be given only through becoming an inmate in the workhouse. At the same time, those workhouses were deliberately made as terrible as possible. This was documented, in debates and letters, in which the main designers of the New Poor Law expressed the idea that, in order to ensure that the idle sought work and saw relief as an absolute last resort, it must be made as unpalatable as possible, that food should be sufficient for continued life, but not sufficient to remove hunger; that men and women should be separated, even if married, and children housed separately from their parents. They were given meaningless, body-breaking work and subjected to brutal regimes. Uniforms identified and dehumanised them in the same way as prisons do now.

It didn't solve the problem.

They chased the bottom: they never reached it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It is government's job to ensure that there is a functioning public transport system, accessible to all and with routes that aren't profitable given subsidies to make sure no one community is left unserved.

That only works in high density areas. Financially impossible in this country. To run public transportation a hundred miles, to serve a hundred people, that may or may not use it on any given day, is out of the question.

[DanaC]

*nods* I can see that rural transport might be more of a problem over there.

But you can see the principle. It's not about making sure everybody has everything they could want. It's about ensuring, as much as possible, that everybody has what they need to survive and has access to that which is needed to be a functioning member of society.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes I see that, and believe it or not, the necessities are available to every American. But not always in a dignified manner, which causes some to decline. Right now there are something like 10 to 20 million children that are eligible for free health care, but not getting it because their parents haven't signed them up.

[DanaC]

Yah. We have a similar problem with some of the means tested benefits, especially those directed at older people. Which is one of the problems inherent in making assistance difficult and humiliating: often the people who most need that help are deterred from seeking it when they most need it and then end up becoming a bigger cost burden on the state, when they hit absolute crisis point or preventable health problems become acute enough to warrant emergency intervention.

One of the best things the labour government did (imo) was bring in the cold weather payments for anyone claiming incapacity benefit, disability allowance, or pension credits, and for anyone above a particular age (can't recall if it was 65 or 70). Payment was triggered any time the temperature dropped below freezing for 7 consecutive days. No need to claim: the cheque arrived by post automatically.

By attaching it to particular benefit types, and age bands, and making it automatic, the government made sure that the most vulnerable groups in society had some kind of response to an extended period of cold weather; and reduced drastically the number of pensioners who die of hypothermia every year in the UK.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Now that's counterproductive, the greater the number of elderly fatalities, the lower the cost of elderly benefits.

[Undertoad]

If the assistance on offer is unpalatable and humliating, then those who have no choice but to seek it for long periods can become psychologically damaged by the experience.

If they are socialized correctly, the same damage occurs if the assistance on offer is palatable and easy to receive. Productive cultures value productive work.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Turning to Sam's particular situation and considering a fix: how big and flat is that town, there on the "Edge of the Land of Enchantment?" Bicycles are easier to afford than cars -- and give practicable mobility to about a 15- to 20-mile radius, coupled with a flexibility no mass transit could possibly match, which taken together I think somewhat shrinks the field for grousing and bitching. But if that disability thing means legs no good or eyes not so good, a bicycle is still no solution -- dang.

Well, thank you for your concern UG! And, no a bicycle is not an option for me. Most of the time I can find a friend with a car to take me where-ever, and I pay them for their gas.

Yes I see that, and believe it or not, the necessities are available to every American. But not always in a dignified manner, which causes some to decline.

The programs are in place, but many of them are badly under-funded. For example, most cities have a two year plus wait for housing vouchers with no emergency assistance available. Congress now wants to cut this program which could turn thousands of people onto the streets - especially low income elderly and disabled.

Depending on the state you live in, food stamps can be woefully inadequate. Social Services treated me like a criminal when I went in to apply and ultimately awarded me $10.00/month. The administrative costs have to be more than that! (BTW, you are in fine form this morning, Bruce - love your one-liners!)

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If they are socialized correctly, the same damage occurs if the assistance on offer is palatable and easy to receive. Productive cultures value productive work.

This is so true. Most of the people I know who are on disability would give anything to go back to work - it's a matter of self-respect as much as anything. It's a major defeat to have to go into the Social Security building and fill out that application. I used up all my savings and had nothing left before I could force myself to go down there.

[Pico and ME]

Public assistance saved my family when I was growing up. I wonder how many other families it has saved in the last 40 years. You don't ever really hear about those numbers. Its much more attention grabbing to list the people who suck off the system and never move up.

[Lamplighter]

Amen to that.

My daughter went on "welfare" after her dear hubby went on a confined vacation
for mistaking an undercover cop for a merchant.
She suddenly developed allergies that put an end to her career in the food industry.

She worked with the system to get training and got a job in the printing industry.
She's now an independent woman with 2 kids in college and 1 there next year.

Of course, while on welfare she was forced to drive a pink Cadillac.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Of course, while on welfare she was forced to drive a pink Cadillac.

That sounds like a good deterrent.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Public assistance saved my family when I was growing up. I wonder how many other families it has saved in the last 40 years.

That was the point of work done by the recent Nobel prize winner. Public assistance even results in a more productive economy and nation.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

That was the point of work done by the recent Nobel prize winner. Public assistance even results in a more productive economy and nation.

This is the problem I have with the small government, anti-welfare approach. It isn't that I have a candyfloos vision of fairness, and am not able to conscience The Things Which Need To Be Done.

I would prefer a greater level of equity in society: but if it made economic sense for the nation to offer little or no public assistance, I could at least be reconciled to some of the argument on the grounds of the greater good. It doesn't make economic sense to me. Therefore I find it very hard to see why i should reconcile myself to the social harm such a system allows, and indeed to a degree depends upon.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Depending on the state you live in, food stamps can be woefully inadequate. Social Services treated me like a criminal when I went in to apply and ultimately awarded me $10.00/month. The administrative costs have to be more than that! (BTW, you are in fine form this morning, Bruce - love your one-liners!)

Sounds about par for Colorado. Also, to work for Labor Ready, you have to have had some kind of criminal activity or have been on some kind of govt assistance in the past (from what I can tell. My husband was denied back in May and that was all we could figure. They give you a big long personality test and they won't tell you why if you get denied.) Also, you have to wait a year to re-apply.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by kerosene

Sounds about par for Colorado. Also, to work for Labor Ready, you have to have had some kind of criminal activity or have been on some kind of govt assistance in the past (from what I can tell. My husband was denied back in May and that was all we could figure. They give you a big long personality test and they won't tell you why if you get denied.) Also, you have to wait a year to re-apply.

Isn't Labor Ready just a private temp employment outfit?
There are many temp labor places. Has your husband tried any of the others?