Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...

[Bootsie]

Absolutely no one on here has said they want the same sliver of pie except those complaining about how the poor get far more benefits than they do - yet they seem terribly unwilling to trade places with them for some reason or another.

 

With the second part of what I've underlined... have you looked at the national debt lately?  'Cause I don't see much "wealth" in our country compared to the older days - post safety net, but with higher tax rates.  I see our country owing an awful lot of money with most of it added in the past decade or two - and more promised in the next few years - far more than I would allow my family to owe proportionately.

 

I just googled how much we all owe (per capita) as of 2015.  It's about $56,375 - each.  In 1990 it was $12,800 each.  Do you want to tell me again just how much wealth we are generating with our policies and lower taxes in this country - because I don't see it.  I see a disaster looming before long.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203064/national-debt-of-the-united-states-per-capita/

 

That said, I want a safety net (paid for from a collective pot - which means increasing taxes, though for health care, for many it would also mean an increase in salary because their job doesn't have to pay or a decrease in costs they are already paying).  I don't want investors profiting from health insurance.  I don't want high paid CEOs, etc.  I want to help care for my brothers and sisters - not the same sliver of pie (existent or not) - but I just don't have a hair on my body that tells me "Cool, I've got mine - sucks to be them."  I know some folks cheat the system.  Such is life - with the wealthy and the poor.  I don't feel it's worth tossing out systems that help so many because of the actions of a relative handful.

This increase in national debt is primarily due to higher government spending.  Since 1950, federal government taxes have averaged about 18% of GDP.  In 1950, federal spending was about 16% of GDP; today federal government spending is about 25% of GDP.  

 

The debt has occurred because of expanded federal spending without a match in tax collection.  In order to change trajectory, either tax revenues must be increased (to a higher percentage of GDP than they have been in the past) or government spending must be slowed down.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This increase in national debt is primarily due to higher government spending.  Since 1950, federal government taxes have averaged about 18% of GDP.  In 1950, federal spending was about 16% of GDP; today federal government spending is about 25% of GDP.  

 

The debt has occurred because of expanded federal spending without a match in tax collection.  In order to change trajectory, either tax revenues must be increased (to a higher percentage of GDP than they have been in the past) or government spending must be slowed down.

 

Actually after nearing a high of around 25% back around 2010/2011, federal spending as a % of GDP is back down to around 25%.

 

Data via the St. Louis Fed:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

 

It's clear from the charts that a large portion of our current mess is related to federal spending, particularly certain military forays into the middle east.

 

A major recession and the Bush tax cut also gave us numerous years well below 18% of tax revenue/GDP in the 2000s:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

 

Sustained economic growth combined with government spending controls (perhaps not dumping a trillion or two in useless wars?)

[SKL]

Agreed.  That's among the major reasons *why* so few take the MID, and it makes perfect sense.  

 

Still, the MID doesn't benefit households that do not take the MID.  Looking either at utilization rates or (even more strongly) absolute dollar levels, it overwhelmingly benefits the top two quintiles.  And, by definition, benefits homeowners not renters.

 

I totally understand how disruptive it would be, to existing owners and particularly to developers and real estate financiers and real estate agents, to mess with such a long-standing and entrenched public policy.

 

 

My point is merely that the mortgage interest deduction is redistributive -- it unambiguously favors one segment of the population over another segment -- yet it is "hidden" in such a way that we do not think of it in the same was as we view more visible transfer payments like SNAP.

 

Well yes, the deduction is a taxpayer-funded incentive intended to influence behavior.  If we must differentiate it from SNAP (not sure why that is important), SNAP isn't an incentive to influence behavior.

 

The focus on the top two quintiles is a little misleading though, because it seems to ignore the fact that most of the tax being paid is coming from the top two quintiles in the first place.

 

If you are thinking that the income cutoff for the phaseout of that deduction is too high, you're entitled to that opinion.  But it does get complicated by the fact that cost of living varies greatly while federal tax rates are uniform across the US.  4th or 5th quintile federally is solidly middle class in some parts of the US.  The middle class tends to have a pretty high marginal tax rate - I don't think it needs to be higher.

[Frances]

I hear you. All of what you're saying makes total sense.

 

I just do not think an across the board sweeping tax plan to level the playing field makes sense. States need to tackle this on their own as I just wrote about in another post here. Your two cities experiencing this trend, do not need to be micromanaged by a D.C. bureaucrat, this is an issue relevant to this particular state, WV faces issues with drug overdoses, addictions, and joblessness. FL has issues with a large aging population. Every state has their"thing."

 

A hugely viable option is to allow the states to handle their own programs to tailor them to their own citizens. If my Federal tax decreased, because programs got phased off to the states, but my state tax increased to pay for MY state's needs, I would be fine with that. I dislike the nebulous nature of Federal government taking a one size fits all approach to things and that echoes thorugh convos like this one as "tax 'em more!!!"

 

We have 13 townships or cities in my county. A few years ago, the county decided to push a lot of decision making it had done off into the hands of the smaller locales. Brilliant! Now, my rural township does what it needs to make our 280 households function best and the city we moved from with massive infrastructure and 86,000 people does what it needs. The county was smart enough to see how each locale does best to handle its own area-specific affairs.

I might be wrong, but I think I remember from another thread that you live in MN. I could certainly understand being more comfortable with the type of system you describe if one lived somewhere like MN. They do a pretty darn good job of providing a social safety net compared to most other states. I can't imagine living somewhere like Mississippi or Alabama under such a system if I needed a strong safety net. Already, in general, blue progressive states pay more into the Feds than they get back while most red states get more than they pay. So where would your system leave poor people in red states?

 

And again, I don't think anyone is advocating for leveling the playing field and everyone having the same amount of income due to some massive redistribution of wealth.

[mamajag]

But this is what I have seen in my own family and neighbors in the 3 communities where I have lived, so it clearly is common enough so that it's a factor in poverty. </snip>

 

 

I have several of those stories, too. It's apparently not okay to say that not making the best choices lead to suboptimal outcomes. It doesn't matter that it is true. It doesn't matter how many times I have lived this experience and tried to give otherwise very decent human beings a way out, too. Because my answer isn't pity and endless handouts and enabling of devastating human conditions, it's not okay. But basically because it isn't nice to expect people to own their mistakes the way I own mine. My husband often tells his trainees that you cannot fix a problem when you have no idea what the cause of the problem is. Right now there are lots of people that look at poverty and don't look deep enough into cultural, generational, and bureaucratic factors that encourage stagnation instead of climbing out. 

 

And yes, if I work my tail off to get my kids a better start in life than I had, then my family earned their position. Did my kid earn that start themselves? No, but it's not a bad road for a family who 3 generations back was following companies building paper plants wherever they led and risking their lives for a little better start for their kids. My mom's generation had a pretty bad setback, but all 3 of her kids have made pretty decent lives for themselves, and college for her grandkids is not seen as something as impossible as winning the lottery. That's beautiful. That's the essence of the American dream.

 

This thread brings this quote to mind: " It is in the character of very few men to honor without envy a friend who has prospered." Aeschylus in Agamemnon.

 

It's a mix of envy and entitlement. When I see someone who is rocking their world like that, I don't want to take what they have. I want to have that life on my own. I might ask them for advice and/or tips because they are living a life I aspire to, but the envy and judgment displayed on this thread is making me sadder for humanity than I thought possible. 

[hepatica]

I might be wrong, but I think I remember from another thread that you live in MN. I could certainly understand being more comfortable with the type of system you describe if one lived somewhere like MN. They do a pretty darn good job of providing a social safety net compared to most other states. I can't imagine living somewhere like Mississippi or Alabama under such a system if I needed a strong safety net. Already, in general, blue progressive states pay more into the Feds than they get back while most red states get more than they pay. So where would your system leave poor people in red states?

 

And again, I don't think anyone is advocating for leveling the playing field and everyone having the same amount of income due to some massive redistribution of wealth.

 

Just to add to this thought, while I truly love the US and think there is something really unparalleled about the diversity of this country, if I were in a Rawlsian thought experiment (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice) where I had to pick where to live without knowing anything about my own particulars (will I be born rich or poor, male or female, black, white, brown etc...) I doubt I would choose the US. As an American, that troubles me.

[Zinnia]

I am flabbergasted at the number of people who deny the role of luck.

 

~

 

Re local government being better - ha! is all I can say to that. My LGA is under investigation (by Federal authorities) for corruption, whereby local government representatives have used their office to enrich themselves and their families. In doing so, they have contravened laws on development, despoiling the area and amenities for local residents. I don't have a high opinion of local government.

 

I suppose some people would see those representatives as just 'making their own luck.'

I live in a county with a long (50+) year history of corruption, waste, greed, and excess. It is mired in race and civil rights, white flight, and gentrification, too. Sticky, nasty stuff.

 

But it doesn't make me look at local control as an all together good thing.

[TravelingChris]

Sadie-- that is so horribly expensive where you live.  I would hope that the government people in your area would be coming up with some solutions. I know when I was living in the Washington DC area, there were developments being built and had already existed where some of the housing was reserved for middle wage people like teachers, policeman type wages.   Our country is so different than yours primarily because it is so much more populated and much larger areas of our country have decent size populations.  My husband works in an area where we only have certain areas of the country we could move to.  We are LUCKY that with his career field, most of the areas are lower cost areas.  Not all as he had offers in Washington DC and San Francisco Bay area too.  I am not one of those who says luck or randomness has a lot to do with your outcomes.  We don't get to choose our genetics, our parents, our personality.  But because of that, there are limited avenues to change.  Social policies are important.  

 

As to quintiles, it really depends on where you live.  As I pointed out earlier in this thread, when we lived in Ohio with the AIr Force, we were in the second highest quintile.  When we moved to Sacramento, we immediately fell to the second lowest quintile. We were still being paid the same.

 

I don't have a problem with VAT as a replacement for some tax.  I have a problem with having VAT and keeping all the other taxes.  

[creekland]

ETA: We are all born to circumstances we can't control; that's certain. However, once you become an adult and you have free agency, it's time to stop blaming everybody else for your circumstances and poor choices. If you aren't chronically, life-threatening I'll and within the range of typical, you make your own mark when you're an adult.

 

Actually, I think it's quite fine to blame "luck" and circumstances for your starting point while still doing what you can to make things better for yourself and your offspring.  It often helps kids I know who make it to know they aren't responsible for where they are, but they can do things to try to better it. After reading this thread, I think that's because folks back home (friends/family/others they contact) plant the seeds making them think they belong/deserve where they are at.

 

This increase in national debt is primarily due to higher government spending.  Since 1950, federal government taxes have averaged about 18% of GDP.  In 1950, federal spending was about 16% of GDP; today federal government spending is about 25% of GDP.  

 

The debt has occurred because of expanded federal spending without a match in tax collection.  In order to change trajectory, either tax revenues must be increased (to a higher percentage of GDP than they have been in the past) or government spending must be slowed down.

 

Hence, needing to go back to where we were with taxes - when it was working much better than now.  It wasn't always the same in our recent past - as ChocolateReign already said later on so I don't have to repeat.  Oh, and yes, I agree with her that we don't quite need as much spending in certain areas as has been common in the past couple of decades.  That's what we can't afford, esp since it doesn't work to try to rule the world.  Even offering aid works better at a much lower cost than fighting, but that's a completely different topic/thread, so I'll end there just noting fixing both would be a good start to trying to dig out of the financial mess the combo has put us in.  We don't need to blame it on having a social safety network.  Many countries in Europe and elsewhere have demonstrated workable models.

 

I have several of those stories, too. It's apparently not okay to say that not making the best choices lead to suboptimal outcomes. It doesn't matter that it is true. 

 

...

 

And yes, if I work my tail off to get my kids a better start in life than I had, then my family earned their position. Did my kid earn that start themselves? No, ...

 

 

It's a mix of envy and entitlement.

 

...

 

but the envy and judgment displayed on this thread is making me sadder for humanity than I thought possible. 

 

No one has said your top statement I quoted - absolutely no one.  Most are saying everyone makes mistakes and everyone has some issues in their lives.  Those with money and/or connections can far more easily overcome their mistakes and issues.  Those without have it far tougher trying to do so - and it's sometimes impossible.

 

Take my nephew.  Through no fault of his own he was born with FAS and has an academic capability of between 4th and 6th grade.  Due to Regents requirements in NY, he couldn't graduate high school, but has managed to since pass the GED (barely). He has some personality quirks from the FAS that turn many people off, but he has a minimum wage job for the summer since it's tourist season where he lives.  He tries other jobs like plowing driveways with his old truck in winter, but that's dependent upon whether his truck is working and if there's snow (wasn't much last year - and his truck recently was totaled because the engine caught fire due to not having the $$ to have it fixed properly, so that's probably out this year).  Tell me what choice he has for a good paying job and I'll let him know.  Are you ready to hire him this fall?  He tries hard and has decent manners (speech-wise) - no tattoos, piercings, etc.  His clothes look like they've come from the thrift store - because they have.  But if you give him a living wage job he can do he could get off Section 8, Food Stamps, and similar... not to mention my mom helping him out by taking him out to meals fairly often, etc.

 

Should I mention he's going to inherit my mom's modest house (worth about 40K) when she passes away?  That's luck TBH.  My mom owns a house to give him and both my boys and I realize he actually deserves it. He's trying to do his best to watch out for her when we're not there during her journey with cancer. Not everyone in his position is going to have family in a position to help them out.  But that won't fix his job/income situation.  It will only take him off Section 8 and quite possibly overqualify him for food stamps.  He has connections that might help.  Others don't.  And even then, it won't necessarily solve his problem, but it will hopefully help.

 

Not everyone using Safety Nets is as mentally capable as those who make choices to make it.  I'd venture to say most aren't - otherwise - if those nets are so attractive, why aren't all of us "smart" folks quitting work to use them?

 

With your last two statements, the envy and judgment seem to be just as much or more at the poor and what they get as at the rich and what they have.  It definitely makes me feel sadder about humanity seeing it too.

 

I have no problem at all with those who aren't able to "make it" themselves - for whatever reason - having options to eat, live, healthcare, with options for education if it can be a path to help.  That latter part just isn't always going to work for everyone - due to their birth lottery LUCK.  No one is saying everyone should have a yacht or Ferrari.  Extra toys come to the extra lucky or those who are able to take advantage of the handful of paths out there to change their economic status.

Edited July 19, 2017 by creekland

[Scarlett]

Oh Sadie.

 

I am so sorry.

Me too. I am in tears. And so many people in her shoes do not have the ability to articulate all of that so perfectly. Or they don't even understand it to begin with.

Randomness means that there is no pattern or predictability.  If I throw a die, knowing that it landed on 4 last time does not tell me anything about whether it will land on 4 (or any other number) next time.  Thus, i is random.  

 

Risk means that a particular outcome is not 100%.  This does not necessarily imply that the outcome is random.  

 

At least, this is how the terms are used in finance.

 

I'm not sure I see the difference.  If I roll a dice, the outcome is completely predictable and deterministic, if I could somehow measure the precise initial conditions of the dice as it leaves my hand, and the conditions of the environment it bounces on, and if I could someone compute the physics involved.  But we consider that infeasible, so we just say informally that the result of a fair dice roll is random.

 

Likewise, with Moxie's friend who started a company,  perhaps the success or failure of her company could be completely deterministic, if only she knew everything about all possible things that impacted the success of her company -- competitors entering or leaving, technology changes, weather, etc. etc. etc.  But, like the physics of the dice, that's infeasible, so we say we can't 100% predict the success of the venture, and in the same way, the result is random.  Perhaps not as random as a dice roll, but if you are starting a company, and you can't predict the outcome, you are to some degree, relying on luck for your success.

 

In your language, you say "Randomness means there is no predictability".  and "Risk means that a particular outcome is not 100%".  I would say that if a particular outcome is not 100%, then it is not predictable.  What am I missing?

[creekland]

Nope. The entire city is in hock to developers. Nothing in it for them re social or affordable housing. Almost every politician benefits from the current set up, with many of them owning multiple investment properties. They have zero incentive to change anything. 

 

And the 'I'm alright, bugger the rest of you' attitude from - yes, those with the luck to have the high paying jobs, or who got into the market before it went pear shaped - means there is no accountability from the electorate. People simply don't care that their teachers or their cleaners or their nannies or their bus drivers or their social workers or their nurses are commuting 3+ hours to get to and from work. Stupid them, for not 'making their luck' in a better paying job. 

 

Anyway. I have to quit this thread. It's making me bitter to talk about it. But the reality is nothing is going to change. And that includes the attitudes of those who blame the have nots for their so-called 'choices', ignoring the overwhelming context. It's definitely an interesting sociological study, hearing from those who believe the poor are thieves but that all that is good in their life was earned 100% by the sweat of their brow. 

 

"Liked" because you said it so well, Sadie.  The whole thing from it not being fair to it not likely to change - along with the attitudes involved. (Your situation and similar ones here.)  If only we could set up an exchange program, but that's not going to happen either.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm several pages behind, but this is a fast moving thread.
 

My friends back home are flabbergasted at what is considered acceptable in the US. They consider having to choose between food and medication, or not being able to afford medical care at all, disgraceful for a country that claims to be civilized and "first world". Visiting here and seeing the rural poverty is quite shocking to them.

I once had a roommate from England. She came home from the store one day appalled at what she saw. There was a collection jar by the cash register for a child's operation, and on the jar was also info about an upcoming fundraising barbecue for that child. She could not believe that here, in the "richest country in the world" a family had to raise money from strangers for a needed operation for their child. I was embarrassed to tell her what she saw wasn't uncommon.

 

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.
 
The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.
 
I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

 
I grew up poor and we lived in the projects (today people just call it Section 8) for a while. I not only know actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care, my mother was one of them. She chose to feed her children and hoped her medical issues didn't get worse. Yes, it is a horror and they're not just stories. They're things that happen to living, breathing human beings. Sometimes it even happens to children. It's a national disgrace.
 

Also, as others pointed out, it happened to someone we know on these boards - Joanne's (ex-) husband. Had he been able to access the medical care he needed he might not be permanently disabled.

 

And here it is again, the idea that people are unwilling to do what it takes to succeed, and that is why they are poor.  That is not true for MOST of the poor, which is the whole point of this thread.  But it keeps showing up over and over again...
 
Does someone not deserve assistance because their grandparents and parents weren't smart enough?  No.  Not any more than we individually "deserve" or have "earned" being well off if our grandparents and parents were smart enough.

 
 Ah, but they all made "poor choices" didn't they?
 

OK, you want to go into the land of silly - I'll play along.
 
Guess what?  I wouldn't have to give up anything.  All I would have to do is divorce my husband and BOOM - I am a single mother with 3 children and a PT job and all of a sudden I am eligible for EIC and Child tax credit, not even counting food stamps and housing assistance and all other good stuff.   All while still living with my now ex-husband.  And if you think that's horrible and dishonest - well, I guess you will be proposing policy changes that significantly crack down on this type of things bc it happens all.the.time.    I've done more tax returns that I can count like that.  And I've worked with many many women who were doing that.
 
But in the meantime - I am sure you are getting your check book as we speak to write checks to IRS for all the excess income that you are so willing to share, correct?

 
No. Just no. Are there some who scam the system? Sure, just like there are wealthy people and corporations who also scam the system. (And if you think that's horrible and dishonest surely you are working to change the corporate tax laws and loopholes for the wealthy.) All states have laws about who lives in your Section 8 housing, and if you don't notify the appropriate authorities when someone else moves in (within a specified time period) you can lose your housing. Usually you have to request approval for another person to live there. 

 

ETA: In most cases it must be a relative (and not all relatives are approved) who is allowed to move in with you, though some states do allow unmarried partners to count. 
 
The only time I've heard about people divorcing and then living together for financial reasons, it was old couples who got better Social Security benefits by being single. Even those cases aren't as high as some would have us believe.
 

Well off tax payers don't like to admit that they are receiving government benefits.

But they're just making smart financial choices doncha know. Poor people scam the system. The well off are just smart.
 

I'm glad I'm not the only one appalled by the sheer selfishness in this thread. MY money. Like all wealth doesn't come from the same, finite shared planet.

 

The sad part is many follow a religion that says "love thy neighbor, just don't let them have any of thy pie". Oh wait, that's not what it says.

 

Fortunately there are also many followers of that same religion who actually know what it says and try to walk the walk.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Frances]

OK, I failed to preface my comment with "most" people born in the USA. I'm not talking about Mosul; let's stick to the USA. I'm not talking about the kid who has a debilitating, life threatening chronic disease, or a kid who is incapable of caring for themselves. Those people have few choices to make their own so-called "luck" and deserve unquestioned benefits. Regardless of circumstances, almost everyone makes their own luck. Tossing out Mosul examples or cystic fibrosis is derailing the point.

 

ETA: We are all born to circumstances we can't control; that's certain. However, once you become an adult and you have free agency, it's time to stop blaming everybody else for your circumstances and poor choices. If you aren't chronically, life-threatening I'll and within the range of typical, you make your own mark when you're an adult.

 

As we learn more about the brain, research is showing us that children raised in poverty and dysfunction have brains that are permanently altered by the stress. Not to mention the effects on those exposed in utero to drugs and alcohol. We also now know that adult brains under severe stress have cognitive impairments that can lead to poor decision making skills. Someone earlier also mentioned the effects of things like lead on developing brains. So while I absolutely agree with you, that in general, adults should take responsibility for their choices and work to better their lives, some people have disabilities that are not obvious or life threatening.

 

Personally, my biggest issue and where I struggle not to judge is when adults who don't remotely have their own lives together bring an innocent child into the world. My heart is regularly broken when doing volunteer work with children suffering due to their parent's bad choices.

 

And as I said in an earlier post, I also don't think people should be using our limited social safety net to support lifestyle choices and definitely not for profit.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Frances

[Bootsie]

I'm not sure I see the difference.  If I roll a dice, the outcome is completely predictable and deterministic, if I could somehow measure the precise initial conditions of the dice as it leaves my hand, and the conditions of the environment it bounces on, and if I could someone compute the physics involved.  But we consider that infeasible, so we just say informally that the result of a fair dice roll is random.

 

Likewise, with Moxie's friend who started a company,  perhaps the success or failure of her company could be completely deterministic, if only she knew everything about all possible things that impacted the success of her company -- competitors entering or leaving, technology changes, weather, etc. etc. etc.  But, like the physics of the dice, that's infeasible, so we say we can't 100% predict the success of the venture, and in the same way, the result is random.  Perhaps not as random as a dice roll, but if you are starting a company, and you can't predict the outcome, you are to some degree, relying on luck for your success.

 

In your language, you say "Randomness means there is no predictability".  and "Risk means that a particular outcome is not 100%".  I would say that if a particular outcome is not 100%, then it is not predictable.  What am I missing?

At least the way the terms are used in finance, something is random or it is not.  Something cannot be more random or less random.  Something can be more or less predictable.  

 

Even if the roll of one die were completely predictable and deterministic if I know all of the variables involved, knowing that does not tell me anything about what the next roll of the die will be.  That is random.  Entering into a game where I am paid $1 if a quarter lands on heads and $1 if lands on tails results in risk (how the quarter lands is random).  Entering into a game where I am paid $1000 if a quarter lands on heads and $1000 if it lands on tails results in more risk, but no more randomness.  

 

Yes, there is some randomness (luck) about how your company does, but I can do things to decrease (or increase) risk.  A business is impacted by changes in technology, weather, etc. Some of those variables are random.  If I use more financial leverage as a business, the impact those changes have on my company will be larger (I have more risk); if i use less financial leverage as a business, the impact those changes have on my company will be smaller (I have less risk).   

[Carrie12345]

I've tried to form a post in this thread at least a ten times now, and I still don't know that I have anything worthwhile to share. Nothing is simple.

 

Choices play roles.

Hard work plays a role.

Luck plays a role.

Luck based on the choices of others plays a role.

Mental health plays a role.

The economy, overall and specific aspects, plays a role.

The cost of healthcare(and access to care) plays a very real role.

 

I could easily rattle of a half a dozen situations that I'm closely acquainted with (including my own) and not one single example would point to an "obvious" outcome.  

[goldberry]

 

This thread brings this quote to mind: " It is in the character of very few men to honor without envy a friend who has prospered." Aeschylus in Agamemnon.

 

It's a mix of envy and entitlement. ......, but the envy and judgment displayed on this thread is making me sadder for humanity than I thought possible. 

 

I have no response to this.  I am equally sad for this thread, but obviously not for the same reasons as you.  

[SKL]

Looking at this thread from a rare (for me, unfortunately) non-hormonal perspective, it doesn't make me sad.  I see good people voicing their concerns and observations and having a discussion, and a few people bristling and reading more into the comments than is meant.

 

I'm not sure why we can't ever discuss the economy without someone interpreting it as an attack on the poor and/or the rich, with predictable accusations such as "selfish," but somehow that's how it always ends up.

[Corraleno]

I have several of those stories, too. It's apparently not okay to say that not making the best choices lead to suboptimal outcomes. It doesn't matter that it is true. It doesn't matter how many times I have lived this experience and tried to give otherwise very decent human beings a way out, too. Because my answer isn't pity and endless handouts and enabling of devastating human conditions, it's not okay. But basically because it isn't nice to expect people to own their mistakes the way I own mine.

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

 

This thread brings this quote to mind: " It is in the character of very few men to honor without envy a friend who has prospered." Aeschylus in Agamemnon.

 

It's a mix of envy and entitlement. When I see someone who is rocking their world like that, I don't want to take what they have. I want to have that life on my own. I might ask them for advice and/or tips because they are living a life I aspire to, but the envy and judgment displayed on this thread is making me sadder for humanity than I thought possible.

 

 

The "entitlement" I'm seeing in this thread is the belief that rich people are entitled to continue to exploit the poor, increasing their wealth (and the profits of the companies they invest in) by paying workers wages that will keep them in poverty forever, providing too few hours to qualify for benefits, voting against measures to increase public transportation thereby making it harder for the working poor to actually get to work, and voting against measures that would provide affordable healthcare for the poor while simultaneously allowing the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries to make huge profits from sick people. Insurance and pharmaceutical executives and shareholders deserve to keep 100% of the money they earn because they work so darn hard at screwing the poor and the sick and the disabled. How dare those greedy, envious poor people think they're entitled to affordable healthcare just because they're fellow human beings. The nerve! Screwing the poor is a fundamental American right, but not dying of curable or preventable diseases is apparently a privilege. And if the working poor want to earn that privilege, well they better get off their lazy butts and work just as hard as all those shareholders who read their investment statements every month.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Corraleno

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "entitlement" I'm seeing in this thread is the belief that rich people are entitled to continue to exploit the poor, increasing their wealth (and the profits of the companies they invest in) by paying workers wages that will keep them in poverty forever, providing too few hours to qualify for benefits, voting against measures to increase public transportation thereby making it harder for the working poor to actually get to work, and voting against measures that would provide affordable healthcare for the poor while simultaneously allowing the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries to make huge profits from sick people. Insurance and pharmaceutical executives and shareholders deserve to keep 100% of the money they earn because they work so darn hard at screwing the poor and the sick and the disabled. How dare those greedy, envious poor people think they're entitled to affordable healthcare just because they're fellow human beings. The nerve! Screwing the poor is a fundamental American right, but not dying of curable or preventable diseases is apparently a privilege. And if the working poor want to earn that privilege, well they better get off their lazy butts and work just as hard as all those shareholders who read their investment statements every month.

 

:hurray:  :hurray:

[creekland]

I'm not sure why we can't ever discuss the economy without someone interpreting it as an attack on the poor and/or the rich, with predictable accusations such as "selfish," but somehow that's how it always ends up.

 

I'm pretty sure it's because too many who made it attribute all their success to themselves and don't have one iota of belief that there are many who didn't make it who tried just as hard or who can't make it due to no fault of their own.  Their stereotype of the poor matches many folks' stereotypes of homeschoolers.  (Meaning some are out there like that, but it in no way is the whole population.)

 

It's quite akin to a top sports star telling everyone they had enough grit to make it to the top, so did - implying that anyone who wanted to can do the same.  They totally overlook all those who had just as much grit, but got injured along the way, didn't have enough talent in spite of putting in as many hours, or couldn't even afford the time or $$ to play/practice to begin with.  Supposedly, it's all choices.

 

I know for myself, I was good at riding (English - show), but could never afford to compete at top levels even though I won quite a bit locally and a little bit I did regionally.  That wasn't my choice to not move on.

 

I also know there's no way in the world I'd have made it to being a top Volleyball player no matter what choices I made or how much practice time I put in.  I'm short... and can't fix that.

[SKL]

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

The "entitlement" I'm seeing in this thread is the belief that rich people are entitled to continue to exploit the poor, increasing their wealth (and the profits of the companies they invest in) by paying workers wages that will keep them in poverty forever, providing too few hours to qualify for benefits, voting against measures to increase public transportation thereby making it harder for the working poor to actually get to work, and voting against measures that would provide affordable healthcare for the poor while simultaneously allowing the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries to make huge profits from sick people. Insurance and pharmaceutical executives and shareholders deserve to keep 100% of the money they earn because they work so darn hard at screwing the poor and the sick and the disabled. How dare those greedy, envious poor people think they're entitled to affordable healthcare just because they're fellow human beings. The nerve! Screwing the poor is a fundamental American right, but not dying of curable or preventable diseases is apparently a privilege. And if the working poor want to earn that privilege, well they better get off their lazy butts and work just as hard as all those shareholders who read their investment statements every month.

 

Hmm, we must be reading different threads ....

 

[SKL]

I'm pretty sure it's because too many who made it attribute all their success to themselves and don't have one iota of belief that there are many who didn't make it who tried just as hard or who can't make it due to no fault of their own.

 

But nobody actually said any of that.  Only one person on this whole thread said anything like "I did it without the government."

 

I didn't read the comments the way you (and several other) paraphrase them.  You are reading between the lines and putting words in people's mouths.  Why?  Because it feels good to be angry or disgusted?

 

[Scarlett]

But nobody actually said any of that. Only one person on this whole thread said anything like "I did it without the government."

 

I didn't read the comments the way you (and several other) paraphrase them. You are reading between the lines and putting words in people's mouths. Why? Because it feels good to be angry or disgusted?

 

Really? People most definitely on this thread are saying 'just work harder'.

[Laura Corin]

How would this type of zoning work? Most zoning laws are about what type of building can be placed on land and the use of those buildings. I am having difficulty seeing how zoning could ensure that people who work in the area can live there. This would depend on price controls. Would you place controls on selling prices or just rental prices? How do you determine which places in the neighborhood are subject to those price controls? What if there are 100 places available and 120 people want to live there? How will they be allocated?

 

In the UK, developers will often be granted planning permission only if they include low rental properties in the mix. Applicants have to provide bank statements in order to qualify. Edited July 19, 2017 by Laura Corin

[BarbecueMom]

As a child who came from poverty, I can have compassion for people in poverty.

 

In general.

 

But reflecting on my own specific childhood, I lose all that and become laser-focused on the specific choices (or not making choices, and hiding a head in the sand) that led to insecurities that carry over into the present day.

 

Things like a leaking pipe under the (only functioning) carpeted bathroom floor. Ignored, not fixed. Had to put thick shoes on to walk across the sopping wet floor (stepping on mold and mushrooms literally growing out of the carpet) just to pee. Was there money to fix it? Maybe, maybe not. I just... don't care why it wasn't fixed. I don't care if it was being broke or anxiety or ignorance or inequality of pay or single parenting or whatever. It was awful, the end. And I place blame for those choices despite the subconscious reasons or external factors behind them. Right or wrong, I'll own it. Because children shouldn't have to spin psychological and sociological arguments to find some sense of security in their lives.

 

So when we talk about poverty as a societal problem, we're talking about income and food security and housing costs. Jobs and culture and data not anecdotes. I'm sympathetic to those things and want societal changes like everyone else. But all I can think about then is putting on my damn shoes to pee indoors because the one working bathroom is a health hazard, or risk getting a UTI just holding it until I get to school the next day. To me, THAT'S poverty. It's not everyone's poverty, but it's the one that never leaves my head, and is the starting place from where I see poverty anywhere else.

[creekland]

But nobody actually said any of that.  Only one person on this whole thread said anything like "I did it without the government."

 

Yes they did.  You need to go back and re-read (because I have laundry to hang up before it gets wrinkled and can't go back to do it for you at the moment).  My guess is you glossed over it in your skimming.

[FaithManor]

To whomever said Americans do not choose between medical help and food, they have not lived my life. As a child, due to my parent's being uninsured, I hid illnesses from them because there wasn't money - once my dad left the military and the VA stalled his benefits - for groceries and doctor's office visits, and we all knew it! Cash payers couldn't make payments. No insurance? Write the check when you walk in the door or no service. Local ER's turfed you to doctor's offices the next day instead of helping if the illness or injury was not imminently dangerous. No money? No service until such time as you became gravely sick. Then short term treatment, and kicked to the curb. Nothing long term was provided since hospitals only have to stabilize the uninsured, but are not required to provide treatment beyond stabilization.

 

Some not good things happened to my sister because of it, and she suffers permanent issues from that. I was fortunate and recovered from the lack of healthcare access. Had I not hidden the issues, my mom would have absolutely had to choose between grocery shopping and paying office calls and prescriptions. She went without vital healthcare as well for the same reasons. Eventually, finally the VA was forced to provide what it owed my parent.

 

We didn't look like we were in poverty, but parents made too much to qualify for Medicaid, and not enough to pay single policy premiums as self employed individuals.

 

There is a reason that Dh and I have NEVER entertained the idea of small business ownership. We are very motivated to keep group medical insurance with a company that pays a significant portion of the premium, and has an HSA we can contribute to because BTDT got the tee shirt, and will not go down that hell hole again if at all possible.

 

There are many people who earn too much for Medicaid, not enough to pay premiums, and run right enough from paycheck to paycheck to choose between filling their prescription for blood pressure meds, or having an x Ray to check for pneumonia vs. buying food.

[Audrey]

It's worse than not fair, it's wrong. But I'm a socialist, so I would say that.

 

Sure as heck not gonna pat Moxie on the head though and console her with the fact she's a lovely mom.

 

It's unfair. It's dispiriting. We can do our absolute best as people, as parents, but much of the time we begin the game with real disadvantage.

 

 

One person's disadvantage may be another person's advantage by comparison.  But comparisons are unhealthy and unwise, IMO and IME.

 

As I said elsewhere.... Eyes on your own paper.  It's a sanity saver. 

[FaithManor]

Yes, sickening. Terms like 'someone else's money' just boil my blood. As if a person who qualifies for aid has robbed a neighbor.

Exact. And the same whiners and complainers who get their hackles up about the money their neighbor might receive in assistance, still drives the same roads, bridges, and tunnels paid for by taxes...a well that is paid into by the poor as well through infinite taxes like sales tax and the like. The wealthy access police, fire, EMS all paid for out of same well which an awful lot of low income folks have contributed too, benefit from the protection of military, and for the worst of the whiners, they have made their money on the backs, blood, sweat, and tears of those same low income folks.

 

You talk about narcissistic!

[mamajag]

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

The "entitlement" I'm seeing in this thread is the belief that rich people are entitled to continue to exploit the poor, increasing their wealth (and the profits of the companies they invest in) by paying workers wages that will keep them in poverty forever, providing too few hours to qualify for benefits, voting against measures to increase public transportation thereby making it harder for the working poor to actually get to work, and voting against measures that would provide affordable healthcare for the poor while simultaneously allowing the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries to make huge profits from sick people. Insurance and pharmaceutical executives and shareholders deserve to keep 100% of the money they earn because they work so darn hard at screwing the poor and the sick and the disabled. How dare those greedy, envious poor people think they're entitled to affordable healthcare just because they're fellow human beings. The nerve! Screwing the poor is a fundamental American right, but not dying of curable or preventable diseases is apparently a privilege. And if the working poor want to earn that privilege, well they better get off their lazy butts and work just as hard as all those shareholders who read their investment statements every month.

The answer is to get a better job, yes. Minimum wage will always be essentially legalized slavery even if we make it $100/hr. The sooner we get people the realize it, the better. It's the minimum for a reason.

 

The blanket nature of supposedly good intentioned people's answer to poverty is a large part of the problem. I know a good man in my hometown who is unemployed and the government is supporting his family. He is a talented carpenter, but some bad things happened in a row and he doesn't have transportation to work. Instead of looking at his situation and seeing a talented, capable man with a very specific problem, the government signs him up for generic programs. He's alive, but he can't dig out. If someone truly looked at his situation and helped him get a vehicle, he could support himself AND the government would save a lot of money that could be used to help someone else. That is what I'm talking about. Looking at every situation as unique and individual and giving targeted help to solve the problems that are keeping them where they are. (My family and some friends are trying to put together money to find him reliable transportation.) I don't know if bureacracies are capable of that level of intervention, but dang it makes a whole lot of sense to look at people's situations and help them remedy whatever the hangup is that is keeping them where they are. Maybe it's childcare. Maybe it's a lack of education. Maybe it's just a lack of direction and hope. Most people I know who haven't climbed out have problems standing in the way of that, and I'm advocating helping them conquer that. I'm advocating mentorship and community building and the return of dignity instead of warehousing the poor the way we currently do.

[Audrey]

The answer is to get a better job, yes. Minimum wage will always be essentially legalized slavery even if we make it $100/hr. The sooner we get people the realize it, the better. It's the minimum for a reason.

 

The blanket nature of supposedly good intentioned people's answer to poverty is a large part of the problem. I know a good man in my hometown who is unemployed and the government is supporting his family. He is a talented carpenter, but some bad things happened in a row and he doesn't have transportation to work. Instead of looking at his situation and seeing a talented, capable man with a very specific problem, the government signs him up for generic programs. He's alive, but he can't dig out. If someone truly looked at his situation and helped him get a vehicle, he could support himself AND the government would save a lot of money that could be used to help someone else. That is what I'm talking about. Looking at every situation as unique and individual and giving targeted help to solve the problems that are keeping them where they are. (My family and some friends are trying to put together money to find him reliable transportation.) I don't know if bureacracies are capable of that level of intervention, but dang it makes a whole lot of sense to look at people's situations and help them remedy whatever the hangup is that is keeping them where they are. Maybe it's childcare. Maybe it's a lack of education. Maybe it's just a lack of direction and hope. Most people I know who haven't climbed out have problems standing in the way of that, and I'm advocating helping them conquer that. I'm advocating mentorship and community building and the return of dignity instead of warehousing the poor the way we currently do.

 

You know what would be an even more efficient solution?  Instead of multiple streams of assistance that each only allow a very narrow range of expenditure for the recipient, there should be a single assistance stream paid to the person in need to spend as they need to spend it.  For some it may be to fix or get a vehicle so they can get to that better job.  For some it may be to purchase food and shelter.  For some it may be to pay for training or education to improve their employability.  Each individual can then apply the assistance to their individual situations.  This would eliminate a large percentage of the overhead cost and red tape to the government since they'd only need to staff a single department of assistance instead of 10, 12, 15 or more programs departments.  It would be like a one stop shop for need.

 

 

 

And... FYI... it is done this way in other locales outside the US.  The cost savings are proven many fold.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Audrey

[Audrey]

 

dp

Edited July 20, 2017 by Audrey

[creekland]

You know what would be an even more efficient solution?  Instead of multiple streams of assistance that each only allow a very narrow range of expenditure for the recipient, there should be a single assistance stream paid to the person in need to spend as they need to spend it.  For some it may be to fix or get a vehicle so they can get to that better job.  For some it may be to purchase food and shelter.  For some it may be to pay for training or education to improve their employability.  Each individual can then apply the assistance to their individual situations.  This would eliminate a large percentage of the overhead cost and red tape to the government since they'd only need to staff a single department of assistance instead of 10, 12, 15 or more programs departments.  It would be like a one stop shop for need.

 

 

 

And... FYI... it is done this way in other locales outside the US.  The cost savings are proven many fold.

 

This only works when people use it as they should - having their priorities in line.  Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen.  For some, drugs and alcohol or other needless things (lottery tickets, new clothes instead of doing laundry, a big screen TV) get purchased instead and the rent isn't paid, food isn't purchased, or that truck isn't fixed.  Then they're in the same bind.  One could say, "tough luck for them" I suppose, but it's super tough to do that when innocent kids are involved.  This is why many programs got specialized.  One could say "take the kids," but there aren't enough foster homes, being poor is not a crime, and kids don't like being taken from their homes - that comes with it's own significant baggage.

 

It'd be nice if it were possible to differentiate among people, but then claims of unfairness are even louder, esp if it comes from the gov't.

[Audrey]

I didn't really ask for this advice, nor do I find it helpful.

 

It's sanity saving for me to be able to call it as I see it - a system of entrenched and deliberate disadvantage, to which anger is a perfectly valid response.

 

Back it up and chill a bit.  YMMV, Sadie.

 

Your hostility is noted.

 

Bye.

[creekland]

The answer is to get a better job, yes. 

 

So are you hiring my nephew and giving him a better income - esp this fall when his summer job ends?  I wrote about him and his issues not long ago.  He's not mentally able to do even community college programs.  He's done some diesel engine coursework (and passed), but no company around him was willing to keep employing him due to his unfixable social issues (not bad ones, just annoying ones) - plus - he needs direction regarding what to do.  He can't come up with what to do on his own.  His brain doesn't work that way.  He tried driving truck (passed the licensing tests after a course), but ran into the same problems - along with a couple of minor accidents, probably due to the same thinking issues.  No one will employ him steadily for that either.  He's been fired twice.

 

I assume you have a higher paying job for him that he can do within his academic and social constraints?

 

Or as a society should we just say he starves and lives on the street?  

 

Is it any surprise that many in similar situations turn to crime, because at least for a while, it seems to pay?  I've had kids at school tell me that's their plan because it pays better than anything else they can do.  One young lad already had an ankle bracelet to "prove" his story.  He had no regrets TBH.  8th grade and with a family history of "the business."

[Audrey]

This only works when people use it as they should - having their priorities in line.  Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen.  For some, drugs and alcohol or other needless things (lottery tickets, new clothes instead of doing laundry, a big screen TV) get purchased instead and the rent isn't paid, food isn't purchased, or that truck isn't fixed.  Then they're in the same bind.  One could say, "tough luck for them" I suppose, but it's super tough to do that when innocent kids are involved.  This is why many programs got specialized.  One could say "take the kids," but there aren't enough foster homes, being poor is not a crime, and kids don't like being taken from their homes - that comes with it's own significant baggage.

 

It'd be nice if it were possible to differentiate among people, but then claims of unfairness are even louder, esp if it comes from the gov't.

 

 

I think it's a matter of perspective.  In the US, it seems that there is a lot of complaint about abuses, but few stats to back up significant abuses.  Yet, the complaints persist if even a very small number of abuses occur amongst the hundreds of thousands who are honest.  It's a counterproductive mindset to be approaching social assistance with the perspective that people are going to rip off the system.

 

The more positive and productive approach is to cast the net broader with the support needed to help them out of the cycle of poverty instead of presuming them criminals before they've even applied for help.

[creekland]

I think it's a matter of perspective.  In the US, it seems that there is a lot of complaint about abuses, but few stats to back up significant abuses.  Yet, the complaints persist if even a very small number of abuses occur amongst the hundreds of thousands who are honest.  It's a counterproductive mindset to be approaching social assistance with the perspective that people are going to rip off the system.

 

The more positive and productive approach is to cast the net broader with the support needed to help them out of the cycle of poverty instead of presuming them criminals before they've even applied for help.

 

I agree that it's counterproductive and for intelligent people who are simply in a bad situation, nothing other than financial help for a short bit is needed (or access to education or similar).

 

But from what I've seen at school (with parents) and from a few examples I know otherwise, there are quite a few who aren't cheating the system so much as they just seem to have no idea how to handle finances - even if taught, over and over again.  This is why there are oodles of bankruptcies from high consumer debt (not related to medical costs or similar).  There's just no concept of paying bills first, then using extra for other things, including an emergency fund.  I've been wondering how to "fix" that for decades now - even posted a thread about it not too long ago - but no one seems to have answers.  When these folks are getting safety net aid, it's pretty important that it's designated aid.

 

With one family my youngest son knew (via a peer), he'd buy food and stock their fridge (using his own money).  Otherwise... no food in the house - and the kids suffer the most.  He did it in a "Pay It Forward" way with his friend - explaining the concept, etc, so hopefully his friend will be better able to spend her money with her kids, etc, rather than falling into the same problem she came from.  Only time will tell.  She's since moved far away from home...  Some of us teachers use the same thing (as we can) with supplying snacks or even occasionally lunch money for kids from some of these families.  Pay It Forward when you can.  Their brains have a better chance of developing when they eat than if they go hungry (and in most of these cases, mom and/or dad will not sign up for free lunches).

[Audrey]

I agree that it's counterproductive and for intelligent people who are simply in a bad situation, nothing other than financial help for a short bit is needed (or access to education or similar).

 

But from what I've seen at school (with parents) and from a few examples I know otherwise, there are quite a few who aren't cheating the system so much as they just seem to have no idea how to handle finances - even if taught, over and over again.  This is why there are oodles of bankruptcies from high consumer debt (not related to medical costs or similar).  There's just no concept of paying bills first, then using extra for other things, including an emergency fund.  I've been wondering how to "fix" that for decades now - even posted a thread about it not too long ago - but no one seems to have answers.  When these folks are getting safety net aid, it's pretty important that it's designated aid.

 

With one family my youngest son knew (via a peer), he'd buy food and stock their fridge (using his own money).  Otherwise... no food in the house - and the kids suffer the most.  He did it in a "Pay It Forward" way with his friend - explaining the concept, etc, so hopefully his friend will be better able to spend her money with her kids, etc, rather than falling into the same problem she came from.  Only time will tell.  She's since moved far away from home...  Some of us teachers use the same thing (as we can) with supplying snacks or even occasionally lunch money for kids from some of these families.  Pay It Forward when you can.  Their brains have a better chance of developing when they eat than if they go hungry (and in most of these cases, mom and/or dad will not sign up for free lunches).

 

 

Here, those kind of people can have their money managed in conjunction with their case worker so that needs don't fall through the crack (hopefully).   I think that's a separate issue, though, and not related to a systemic view of people as being out to cheat the system.  That lens is very damaging to people, and costly to governments.

 

ETA: that these things are exceptions to the norm, and a system that is out to target the exceptions ends up hurting the vast majority who just need help. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Audrey

[Guest]

As a child who came from poverty, I can have compassion for people in poverty.

 

In general.

 

But reflecting on my own specific childhood, I lose all that and become laser-focused on the specific choices (or not making choices, and hiding a head in the sand) that led to insecurities that carry over into the present day.

 

Things like a leaking pipe under the (only functioning) carpeted bathroom floor. Ignored, not fixed. Had to put thick shoes on to walk across the sopping wet floor (stepping on mold and mushrooms literally growing out of the carpet) just to pee. Was there money to fix it? Maybe, maybe not. I just... don't care why it wasn't fixed. I don't care if it was being broke or anxiety or ignorance or inequality of pay or single parenting or whatever. It was awful, the end. And I place blame for those choices despite the subconscious reasons or external factors behind them. Right or wrong, I'll own it. Because children shouldn't have to spin psychological and sociological arguments to find some sense of security in their lives.

 

So when we talk about poverty as a societal problem, we're talking about income and food security and housing costs. Jobs and culture and data not anecdotes. I'm sympathetic to those things and want societal changes like everyone else. But all I can think about then is putting on my damn shoes to pee indoors because the one working bathroom is a health hazard, or risk getting a UTI just holding it until I get to school the next day. To me, THAT'S poverty. It's not everyone's poverty, but it's the one that never leaves my head, and is the starting place from where I see poverty anywhere else.

Barbecue Mom, I just wanted to say, I hear ya. I didn't grow up with the same situation, but there were some in my family that were of a similar ilk - like flea infestations that went unaddressed. Problems that regular people would not live with for more than a day that went on unrepaired and were treated with a shrug as, "oh well. We can't afford to fix that."

 

It does sort of burn into one's brain.

[TechWife]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

 

Can you tell my sister, who is unemployed, no insurance, how to get the medical care she needs for her lupus? See, it isn't an emergency, so she wouldn't be treated in the ED. They are only obligated to stabilize patients at no cost, not to treat their chronic illnesses at no cost. Her meds are mostly affordable, but the lab work that she has to get done for those meds to be prescribed is over $700 a pop. She's single, no dependents so no, she doesn't qualify for medicaid (her state didn't expand the program). See, her lupus is wracking havoc on her body. The longer she goes without medical care, the more unhealthy she becomes. The more unhealthy she becomes, the less likely it is she will be able to work and get medical insurance, which would give her access to medical care. She can't get Social Security or Medicare disability because it requires her to prove she is disabled by lupus, which requires regular lab work to prove she has lupus (remember that $700 lab work, yeah, that). So, yeah, if you could explain how she can get that needed medical care, it would be great. Thanks.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I am having trouble doing multi-quotes right now, but here are a few points to share in response to PP's...

 

1. To the people who think I disagree with a Safety Net concept for those in need, you are not reading far enough back into the conversation, which I know, is tough now that this is 12+ pages long. But, I do support helping, but at a state level for all of those above mentioned items like healthcare, education, food, and so on. I have shared that due to each state being so different and having its own set of troubles, each state, with some Federal oversight, would benefit taking the responsibility for its own citizens. As we have discussed in past discussions in other threads, the wide variety of cultural uniqueness across various state lines is quite significant. We are asking a behemoth Federal government to aid people from AK to ME, and FL to HI. It is craziness.

 

2. I PP was accurate, I do live in MN and we do have some of the best programs in the country despite the Federal government, because MN has gone beyond many other states. I think Federal policies hold back many states from achieving what they need for their own citizens. If Uncle Sam, just went hands-off for these programs, and said, "States this is up to you now," I do believe that the blue, red and purple places would just do what they needed to help their own people. I have seen that work here in my own county (yes, immensely smaller scale) when the county gave control of many things to our 13 cities and townships.

 

3. Regarding Points 1 and 2, these are valid ideas to solve our problems as a nation and to make many people here happy about safety nets, access, and more equality, as well as moving with more ease through life as our European friends do. But, you all ignore these ideas in favor of continuing to discuss how unfair current policies are and how the only way is to tax more at a Federal level. I respectfully disagree.

 

4. Also, in a PP of mine, I mentioned how our wealth is all worthless paper and metal as well as binary code (fiat money) and yes, that it could all just go away, in fact, even worse than 2008/2009.

 

5. Having a pie analogy does \ne I think people are lazy, stupid, or crooks. In fact, none of my posts use those words or suggest any of those ideas to be the case. When my analogy does demonstrate is the position that some people think wealth is finite and it is not.

 

6. Drawing that out a bit more...someone mentioned backs of workers and business owners using them to build wealth to their (workers') harm. I agree. I have not said otherwise. This is where proper oversight comes in and dialing back interest groups. On the flip side...using my ideas of state controlled safety net programs, workers' backs wouldn't be hurt at all or the brunt of it would be lessened. The CEO and managers could still earn their wealth, businesses could still put un-taxed monies back into their business for (also in my PP) R&D, ad/PR, new materials, more workers, better company benefits, and workers get what they need for safety net living from their state.

 

I just really think this is a win-win. I also mentioned how our European neighbors' own nations are more like our individual states than our entire nation is. They operate so well (aside from the 4 like Cyprus, Greece, etc..) because they are trim and slender in terms of population size and geographic size. Each U.S. state is like that. Texans take care of Texans. Iowans take care of Iowans, and so on.

 

 

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Mommy liberty, I can't quote on this device and I can't address your whole post here at bedtime, but I just wanted to tell you that states do not have equal resources. Some have greater needs, and higher population concentrations, than can be supported on a state level alone. I'm not just talking about what's possible through taxation. I'm also talking about job opportunities and variance in industries. We work as a whole nation for a reason.

 

We see this in inequity education as well as health care; it's just not gonna happen for citizens - including elderly, children, and disabled - without the Fed. Maybe in Minnesota but not in Mississippi. We are the United States of America and have a responsibility to all our citizens. Sovereign states as a solution to inefficiency will fail the least of the poorer states in a really horrific way.

 

See Detroit and Flint.

[Scarlett]

As a child who came from poverty, I can have compassion for people in poverty.

 

In general.

 

But reflecting on my own specific childhood, I lose all that and become laser-focused on the specific choices (or not making choices, and hiding a head in the sand) that led to insecurities that carry over into the present day.

 

Things like a leaking pipe under the (only functioning) carpeted bathroom floor. Ignored, not fixed. Had to put thick shoes on to walk across the sopping wet floor (stepping on mold and mushrooms literally growing out of the carpet) just to pee. Was there money to fix it? Maybe, maybe not. I just... don't care why it wasn't fixed. I don't care if it was being broke or anxiety or ignorance or inequality of pay or single parenting or whatever. It was awful, the end. And I place blame for those choices despite the subconscious reasons or external factors behind them. Right or wrong, I'll own it. Because children shouldn't have to spin psychological and sociological arguments to find some sense of security in their lives.

 

So when we talk about poverty as a societal problem, we're talking about income and food security and housing costs. Jobs and culture and data not anecdotes. I'm sympathetic to those things and want societal changes like everyone else. But all I can think about then is putting on my damn shoes to pee indoors because the one working bathroom is a health hazard, or risk getting a UTI just holding it until I get to school the next day. To me, THAT'S poverty. It's not everyone's poverty, but it's the one that never leaves my head, and is the starting place from where I see poverty anywhere else.

I mentioned earlier that when I was a child we lived with no running water. The house was 4 rooms in the middle of a cow pasture with a fence separating the house, well and an outhouse from the actual cows. The reason we ended up in that house was because my mom had rented a house in town and when the plumbing backed up the landlord refused to fix it. So my mom in her usual spunky way just up and found us a place to live that did not have toilets backing up.

 

That entire episode is so vivid in my mind. I loved that little house with no indoor plumbing. We called it 'the little house on the prairie'. It was exceptionally clean. We did paint all the rooms....and it was the first and last stop on the bus route so no one had to see me get on and off the bus. Yes I was torn. Glad to be in a clean house with no backed up toilets , but still aware enough that others would see it as less than. We only lived there from the summer through December....my mom had been taking a course of some kind and got a job as a secretary. I imagine it was a brutal amount of work for her....oh I forgot to mention it had wood heat which required a lot of work to keep us warm.

 

Sorry, I know I am rambling.....but I know most people would not find an extreme solution like my mom did....and I wish she didn't have to.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

2. I PP was accurate, I do live in MN and we do have some of the best programs in the country despite the Federal government, because MN has gone beyond many other states. I think Federal policies hold back many states from achieving what they need for their own citizens. If Uncle Sam, just went hands-off for these programs, and said, "States this is up to you now," I do believe that the blue, red and purple places would just do what they needed to help their own people. I have seen that work here in my own county (yes, immensely smaller scale) when the county gave control of many things to our 13 cities and townships.

 

I am curious as to what specific policies you believe keep states from meeting the safety net needs of their citizens?

[Audrey]

Mommy liberty, I can't quote on this device and I can't address your whole post here at bedtime, but I just wanted to tell you that states do not have equal resources. Some have greater needs, and higher population concentrations, than can be supported on a state level alone. I'm not just talking about what's possible through taxation. I'm also talking about job opportunities and variance in industries. We work as a whole nation for a reason.

 

We see this in inequity education as well as health care; it's just not gonna happen for citizens - including elderly, children, and disabled - without the Fed. Maybe in Minnesota but not in Mississippi. We are the United States of America and have a responsibility to all our citizens. Sovereign states as a solution to inefficiency will fail the least of the poorer states in a really horrific way.

 

See Detroit and Flint.

 

There is a way to strike balance.  For example, payments to states could be made based on need instead of population.  All populations would pay federal income tax, but those wealthier states who can more readily support their needs wouldn't get as much, while poorer states would get equalizing payments so that they, too, can meet their population's needs.  Here, they call it transfer payments.   Each province gets to decide how to use fed money, plus their own revenues to meet the needs of their population.   I, particularly, like this way of doing government business because in effect, it's an application, albeit a mild one, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that has a proven track record of success.  Granted, it's not perfect, but it works rather well overall.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

(Still can't quote) Audrey, that sounds like one of those many, many systems that work perfectly well in other countries but will be nigh unto impossible here bc of stubbornness...

 

People who want to kick the fed gov out of schools, health care, welfare, etc. definitely mean a wholesale purge. They really do mean Iowans take care of Iowans and who cares whether Michigsn can take care of Michigan - after all, nobody forces anyone to live there.

 

It's like how we can't have a reasonable national curriculum without the boondoggling failure that has been common core, even though other nations have consistent standards without hamstringing teachers.

 

Or how we can't have single payer health care because we can't even stand the ACA or contributing tax money to someone else's birth control, although every other first world nation manages it pretty well. I think many of us don't even understand how insurance works, tbh.

 

We are as corrupt as any nation has ever been, and we've never enjoyed a more selfish era on every level. Reform is going to have to come from the top down, because too many fail to care enough to insist on justice from the bottom up.

 

Or so it seems from here...

[Scarlett]

I thought of this thread today. My husband, who is one of the hardest working men I have ever known had to have a total knee replacement Monday. Thankfully this happened at a time that we qualified for a low income state insurance....apparently it is a branch of Medicaid... I am exceedingly grateful for this. The surgeon told us at initial consult we would have home physical therapy. Then his nurse calls me and says our insurance won't pay for that. In the hospital the surgeon ordered physical therapy at a place in town.....a few minutes before we left the hospital today they informed us our insurance would not pay for that either. The were distraught. Lol...we were meh.....

 

So we had a big discussion about the exercises that needed to be done.....and well Dh is smart and highly motivated to get this stuff right so he can, you know...walk and stuff.

 

Does it strike anyone as insane that they would pay for a 50k knee replacement but the therapy to insure the best possible outcome is denied?

 

And then I went to get dhs meds....Percocet, and two anti Nausea meds.......zofran and a gel you rub on your wrists. There was much discussion at the pharmacy as to whether they would pay for the gel. I mean who knows how they reason on things. But they did....so Dh can control his pain without violently vomiting every five minutes.

 

And all of this was just so confusing to me as I was attempting to be humble and grateful for the surgery being paid for... While being amused and enraged that they refuse physical therapy.

[Frances]

I am having trouble doing multi-quotes right now, but here are a few points to share in response to PP's...

 

1. To the people who think I disagree with a Safety Net concept for those in need, you are not reading far enough back into the conversation, which I know, is tough now that this is 12+ pages long. But, I do support helping, but at a state level for all of those above mentioned items like healthcare, education, food, and so on. I have shared that due to each state being so different and having its own set of troubles, each state, with some Federal oversight, would benefit taking the responsibility for its own citizens. As we have discussed in past discussions in other threads, the wide variety of cultural uniqueness across various state lines is quite significant. We are asking a behemoth Federal government to aid people from AK to ME, and FL to HI. It is craziness.

 

2. I PP was accurate, I do live in MN and we do have some of the best programs in the country despite the Federal government, because MN has gone beyond many other states. I think Federal policies hold back many states from achieving what they need for their own citizens. If Uncle Sam, just went hands-off for these programs, and said, "States this is up to you now," I do believe that the blue, red and purple places would just do what they needed to help their own people. I have seen that work here in my own county (yes, immensely smaller scale) when the county gave control of many things to our 13 cities and townships.

 

3. Regarding Points 1 and 2, these are valid ideas to solve our problems as a nation and to make many people here happy about safety nets, access, and more equality, as well as moving with more ease through life as our European friends do. But, you all ignore these ideas in favor of continuing to discuss how unfair current policies are and how the only way is to tax more at a Federal level. I respectfully disagree.

 

4. Also, in a PP of mine, I mentioned how our wealth is all worthless paper and metal as well as binary code (fiat money) and yes, that it could all just go away, in fact, even worse than 2008/2009.

 

5. Having a pie analogy does \ne I think people are lazy, stupid, or crooks. In fact, none of my posts use those words or suggest any of those ideas to be the case. When my analogy does demonstrate is the position that some people think wealth is finite and it is not.

 

6. Drawing that out a bit more...someone mentioned backs of workers and business owners using them to build wealth to their (workers') harm. I agree. I have not said otherwise. This is where proper oversight comes in and dialing back interest groups. On the flip side...using my ideas of state controlled safety net programs, workers' backs wouldn't be hurt at all or the brunt of it would be lessened. The CEO and managers could still earn their wealth, businesses could still put un-taxed monies back into their business for (also in my PP) R&D, ad/PR, new materials, more workers, better company benefits, and workers get what they need for safety net living from their state.

 

I just really think this is a win-win. I also mentioned how our European neighbors' own nations are more like our individual states than our entire nation is. They operate so well (aside from the 4 like Cyprus, Greece, etc..) because they are trim and slender in terms of population size and geographic size. Each U.S. state is like that. Texans take care of Texans. Iowans take care of Iowans, and so on.

I wish I could have your confidence about states stepping up, but I absolutely do not. Many people in states who did not expand Medicaid under the ACA and did not have affordable employer based insurance were basically left with nothing. And the Feds were picking up most of the bill. Have you lived in any of the poorer red states? I just don't see where the money is magically going to appear from. There is no strong safety net in many of them now and that is with them getting more than their share of money from the Feds. Resources and capital are not spread evenly across the country.

 

And personally, I find the idea of such inequity in the UNITED states of America sickening. It's like people who thought it was fine for gay marriage to be allowed in some states, but not others. So then someone serving our country in the military might be considered legally married in one state, but not another. What even unites as a country? I'm not ok with things being fine just in my state, I want a strong safety net throughout the country.

 

We see already what happens when states compete to get corporations to move there or movies to shoot or server farms to be built there by using tax incentives and direct payments. Studies have shown that much of the time this is simply a race to the bottom and basically corporate welfare. At the extreme, it sometimes pencils out to each job costing the state $1M. Honestly, all I can picture is some sort of Hunger Games scenario if every state were left to its own devices.

 

And to the pie point, much of wealth is tied up in real estate and land, especially liveable land, is finite. Much has been written about this in relation to inequity. And as I posted earlier, increasing wealth through land values for some actually can directly lead to others being worse off because more and more of their income goes to keeping a roof over their head. Sadie is personally experiencing this right now.

[Frances]

There is a way to strike balance. For example, payments to states could be made based on need instead of population. All populations would pay federal income tax, but those wealthier states who can more readily support their needs wouldn't get as much, while poorer states would get equalizing payments so that they, too, can meet their population's needs. Here, they call it transfer payments. Each province gets to decide how to use fed money, plus their own revenues to meet the needs of their population. I, particularly, like this way of doing government business because in effect, it's an application, albeit a mild one, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that has a proven track record of success. Granted, it's not perfect, but it works rather well overall.

This is already done to some extent in the US. While not just one lump of money is given to each state by the Feds, money for specific things such as Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, education, etc is given and then states are allowed to design their own programs within certain parameters and supplement as they wish. There's another thread on this board right now where someone asked how Medicaid worked for children and you can see the wide variety of answers based on location. And in general, poorer states do already get more financial resources from the Feds.