# Politics Motivated by Suffering



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The most basic goal of government is to make a country better. In our own era, they also very often make it their remit to make the _world_ better. However, perhaps for reasons of naivete, propaganda, or just strange human priorities, we don't seem to go about this very logically.

Though our politics ought to maximise happiness and minimise suffering, we seem to focus disproportionately on solving suffering that causes minimal damage but is quite visceral in our imagination. For example, speaking purely statistically, the September 11th terrorist attacks made a very, very, very, very small dent in the suffering of the U.S. as a whole, and the consequences of military action have been far worse. The money spent on military intervention if put to use at home could likely have improved many more lives than have been saved by presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I try my best not to take the most cynical view, so I don't want to jump to the conclusion that government is profit-motivated and the nation hood-winked. I think that there is an element of that, but I think this is also indicative of something more fundamental about the human psyche. A few thousand people being killed in an extreme one-off event singed onto our memories stirs a lot more emotion and call to arms than does a few hundred thousand people suffering every day thanks to endemic problems with healthcare and poverty in our own country.

Do you think there are arguments for prioritising the few thousand over the few hundred thousand? Or do you think that we ought to be targeting the biggest problems statistically, and avoiding getting sucked in by emotive events that, though tragic, are tiny in comparison?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I detect some jest, but I'll play. Everybody's suffering, including the politicians. The tailspin continues.

IMO 9-11 was the greatest accidental tactic in the history of warfare. The attackers had no idea the twin towers would collapse and provide enormous symbolism for their cause. I needn't go into a lengthy interpretation. America's achilles heel was damaged, and would be for the foreseeable future, and beyond.

What's bad for America is also bad for the world. Until China owns everything, this won't change. That'll be beyond our lifetimes, so suffering will continue to have a distinct place in the playbook.

Atleast since JFK said, "Ask not....", it hasn't been the government's role to make things better.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Vaneyes said:


> I detect some jest, but I'll play. Everybody's suffering, including the politicians. The tailspin continues.
> 
> IMO 9-11 was the greatest accidental tactic in the history of warfare. The attackers had no idea the twin towers would collapse and provide enormous symbolism for their cause. I needn't go into a lengthy interpretation. America's achilles heel was damaged, and would be for the foreseeable future, and beyond.
> 
> ...


I think perhaps you didn't read my post.  The question is about the relative numbers of different kinds of suffering and which kinds we then choose to prioritise.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think perhaps you didn't read my post.  The question is about the relative numbers of different kinds of suffering and which kinds we then choose to prioritise.


I read and thought the logic illogic...not able to understand that everything soon becomes affected/related during catastrophic events. Prioritizing of suffering is ludicrous. If you will, making the country better is a luxury. Protecting the country is survival.

End of discussion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Polednice... you start your post with a faulty premise: _"The most basic goal of government is to make a country better."_ Since when? The most basic goal of governments has been to govern... and ultimately they are out of a job if they cannot protect those whom they govern. You grossly underestimate the effect of the 9-11 attacks. 9-11 undermined the American since of invulnerability. You will remember that with the exception of Pearl Harbor no enemy bombs touched American soil in WWII. We underwent a period of paranoia during the "Cold War" that reached it's peak during the Cuban Missile Crises, but since then there has been a sense that the US was impervious to foreign attack... that only a nation with the military capabilities of the USSR could possibly stage such an attack... and such would be insanity for it would result in mutual destruction. Indeed, it was presumed that the American military, nuclear defense systems, missile defenses, radar and satellite, and air traffic control which kept a vigilant eye ever upon the skies above US soil would surely catch any attempted attack on the US well in advance. But on 9-11 a bunch of fundamentalist lunatics from the third world armed with little more than box cutters took down both of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon... the symbols of American economic and military might. They fell short of hitting the White House due to the actions of citizens aboard the 4th hijacked plane. The psychological impact upon the US was immense... and any government wishing to remain in its position of governing under such circumstance would need to immediately show its ability to strike back and the defend the nation... even if this involve attacking the wrong targets.

I must fully agree with Vaneyes, the notion of prioritizing suffering is ludicrous. Most of what the government does in terms of increasing the quality of living of its citizens is undertaken with the realization that such actions likely assure that those who govern shall remain in power and that the nation as a whole shall remain powerful and wealthy. Not too many years ago you paid "fire insurance" if you wished for firemen to put out any fires on your premises. Events such as the Great Chicago Fire spurred reform of fire departments with the realization that it is to everyone's advantage to provide public fire departments. Public Sanitation, Plumbing, Streets, Education all evolved from a similar drive. We provide Public Education for all students because we recognize that such is a necessity if we are to remain competitive with other nations (something the Neo-Cons of the world fail to grasp).

I fully agree that most nations waste huge portions of their allotted budgets that might be put to far better use. I question how to go about this... and I question the logic of "prioritizing suffering". The standard of living of the average American or Brit living in the worse urban neighborhoods is luxurious compared to the standards of living in a great many places. The inner city children I teach sport cell phones (often the latest i-phones), have computers at home, and wear designer shirts and shoes. What else should we buy them using the tax dollars of others?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _"The most basic goal of government is to make a country better."_ Since when?


Well, no later than 1787.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare,* and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I fully agree that most nations waste huge portions of their allotted budgets that might be put to far better use


One reason for this, IMO, is the opaque lobbying culture.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I did mention maximising happiness as well, which has all sorts to do with prosperity. But when you talk about the government's role in fire departments, sanitation, healthcare, education - those _are_ all to do with minimising suffering. Suffering ranges from physical pain and poverty to damage of property and social mobility.

The fact that you focused on the psychological effects of 9/11 is also precisely what I said is wrong with how it was viewed. Just look at the absolute numbers - it doesn't matter how America was made to _feel_, the _fact_ is that the effect of 9/11 on the population was negligible, and the reaction to it disproportionate. Hence my point that we seem to latch onto grotesque images like the destruction of the towers, rather than on actually more damaging, but endemic problems that are permanent and out of sight.

You both say that prioritising suffering is "ludicrous", but you didn't make a cogent argument. Why is it ludicrous? Tell me which would have been better: spending money on invading a foreign country in order to prevent future terrorist attacks which, in total, might affect a few thousand to a few tens of thousand of people, just for the sake of the public's psychological state and sense of entitled jingoism, or redistributing the same amount of money amongst services at home with the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of people into a better state than they were in before?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> You both say that prioritising suffering is "ludicrous", but you didn't make a cogent argument. Why is it ludicrous? Tell me which would have been better: spending money on invading a foreign country in order to prevent future terrorist attacks which, in total, might affect a few thousand to a few tens of thousand of people, just for the sake of the public's psychological state and sense of entitled jingoism, or redistributing the same amount of money amongst services at home with the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of people into a better state than they were in before?


huuuurrrrrr ummm I think imma go wit that thar second option, did I win ma lifetime supply of re-fried beans mama!?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Government is about making the world safe for the Fortune 500, silly!


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2012)

We ALWAYS prioritize suffering. As compared to other crime, how many people are murdered in the country each year, and how much do we spend employing homicide detectives? Or consider the leading causes of death in the world - statistics from the World Health Organization for 2008 show the following:
Ischaemic heart disease - 12.8% of deaths (7.25 million)
Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease - 10.8% (6.15 million)
Lower respiratory infections - 6.1% (3.46 million)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - 5.8% (3.28 million)
Diarrhoeal disease - 4.3% (2.46 million)
HIV/AIDS - 3.1% (1.78 million)

Take a wild guess which of those causes, though, gets the most attention. Not to say it shouldn't get a lot of attention, as there are some places in Africa where HIV/AIDS has overtaken war as the leading cause of death. But still, there are certainly other areas where the money could be spent - most diarrhoeal diseases only require simple palliative care (e.g. keeping the patient hydrated).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> We ALWAYS prioritize suffering. As compared to other crime, how many people are murdered in the country each year, and how much do we spend employing homicide detectives? Or consider the leading causes of death in the world - statistics from the World Health Organization for 2008 show the following:
> Ischaemic heart disease - 12.8% of deaths (7.25 million)
> Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease - 10.8% (6.15 million)
> Lower respiratory infections - 6.1% (3.46 million)
> ...


¿Other areas? Well shucks, money is being spent in those other areas. Far as 'simple palliative care' goes, if the potential caregivers aren't allowed to get there, and clean water sources don't exist even if they could get there...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Hey, Poles, if this gets to 18 pages I'm proposing again!


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I remember one night years ago myself along with a group of my friends and classmates we're having this discussion or one very similar to it. Someone quoted this and I will never forget it:

"_Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache.... Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness._" ~ *George Orwell* - *Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun*

Suffering is not the problem it is merely the symptom of a problem whatever it may be. Even if you could eliminate suffering I'm not sure people would not suffer if that makes sense.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I'd also like to add that I don't believe politics is motivated by suffering rather that most suffering is motivated by politics.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

kv466 said:


> Hey, Poles, if this gets to 18 pages I'm proposing again!


18?!

Right guys, we need something more controversial to fight over for ages! Religion sucks. Beethoven sucks. Abortions should be free, easy, and encouraged. I love fascism. Come on!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2012)

How about Brahms Sucks!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Polednice said:


> 18?!
> 
> I love fascism.


What?! You love Fascism? You dirty Commie!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Communist, fascist, atheist, Muslim, British, whatever. No need to split hairs. Polednice is a bad person. Just apply derogatory labels indiscriminately because there are only two sides in any debate: good, and Polednice. 

Now I believe in a fair and balanced approach, so we're going to let good get in a few words eventually. But first, more from Polednice.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

science said:


> Communist, fascist, atheist, Muslim, British, whatever. No need to split hairs. Polednice is a bad person. Just apply derogatory labels indiscriminately because there are only two sides in any debate: good, and Polednice.
> 
> Now I believe in a fair and balanced approach, so we're going to let good get in a few words eventually. But first, more from Polednice.


I'm too tired to tell but I hope this was in jest *Science*. Anyway chaps I'm feeling sick good night for now. :tiphat:

Vive la Résistance *Polednice*!​


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2012)

science said:


> Communist, fascist, atheist, Muslim, British, whatever. No need to split hairs. Polednice is a bad person. Just apply derogatory labels indiscriminately because there are only two sides in any debate: good, and Polednice.
> 
> Now I believe in a fair and balanced approach, *so we're going to let good get in a few words eventually*. But first, more from Polednice.


Don't worry, I (good) manage to get in plenty of words, you don't need to "let" me.:devil:


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

a general statement, but could it be that we as human beings define our reality through misery and suffering? Why is it we remember the tragic things of the past like 9-11, the great chicago fire, the riots of detroit, the extermination of jews? And yet cant seem to recall any part of history that showed happiness of the same magnitude? (innovation in science/art does not really count, since that is connected to the innovation itself)

Lets face it, violence and suffering are what we identify with, we just like to think that those things made us more better as human beings, but it doesnt stop. EVER.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> a general statement, but could it be that we as human beings define our reality through misery and suffering? Why is it we remember the tragic things of the past like 9-11, the great chicago fire, the riots of detroit, the extermination of jews? And yet cant seem to recall any part of history that showed happiness of the same magnitude? (innovation in science/art does not really count, since that is connected to the innovation itself)
> 
> Lets face it, violence and suffering are what we identify with, we just like to think that those things made us more better as human beings, but it doesnt stop. EVER.


The magnitude of 'good things' can't be based on popular agreement, because usually those who think it _is_ a good thing are a narrow majority.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> a general statement, but could it be that we as human beings define our reality through misery and suffering? Why is it we remember the tragic things of the past like 9-11, the great chicago fire, the riots of detroit, the extermination of jews? And yet cant seem to recall any part of history that showed happiness of the same magnitude? (innovation in science/art does not really count, since that is connected to the innovation itself)
> 
> Lets face it, violence and suffering are what we identify with, we just like to think that those things made us more better as human beings, but it doesnt stop. EVER.


This is an interesting, intuitive point - personally, I've always thought that people assume physical suffering will never happen to them, but they have the worst emotional suffering than anyone else. This is why people can be despondent over the most trivial things, and be so stupid as to not wear a seatbelt.

However, studies also show that we are eternal optimists. I saw a clip about a study the other day where participants were asked to.give their estimations of how likely they were to suffer a particular illness, and then they were shown the actual figures. They went through the same questions for a second time (I think around 70 things, including illnesses and injury), and people consistently take on the information and become accurate with statistics where they had estimated to high (ie. it turned out they were less likely than they thought to suffer something), but they subconsciously ignored statistics that showed they were too optimistic.

I think this perhaps plays into my original thought. When it comes to acute events, illnesses and accidents, people are more optimistic than the stats suggest we should be. I think with 9/11, although it was a physical tragedy that happened to other people, it became very much a psychological issue, as it was not just a travesty against other individuals as with a bus crash, it was a statement of hatred against a nation and their pride. So we ended up investing more time, effort, money and lives than was proportionate, as it was a deeply emotional issue.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The magnitude of 'good things' can't be based on popular agreement, because usually those who think it _is_ a good thing are a narrow majority.


but that can also be turned around to say:
"The magnitude of 'bad things' can't be based on popular agreement, because usually those who think it is a bad thing are a narrow majority."

So, how is it we can define the bad so easily and be in complete agreement on it, while with the good things its always a blur? That seems to indicate that we identify with the bad more than with the good.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> but that can also be turned around to say:
> "The magnitude of 'bad things' can't be based on popular agreement, because usually those who think it is a bad thing are a narrow majority."
> [...]


Nope, you got that wrong. There are _many_ more volcanic eruptions than black men being elected President of the US.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I did mention maximising happiness as well, which has all sorts to do with prosperity. But when you talk about the government's role in fire departments, sanitation, healthcare, education - those are all to do with minimising suffering. Suffering ranges from physical pain and poverty to damage of property and social mobility.

But is that why the Government instated these? I may be cynical here, but I know for a fact that free public schools in the US, for example, were not instated due to some great feeling of empathy among those in government. Public schools were seen as essential for educating/training a population so that they might provide good employees in the factories. Any number of elements of the American public educational plan, known as the "Industrial Plan" were geared toward this end. If a few poor were found to be of great enough intelligence to be worthy of a college education... well tough luck... we'll need to wait until the post-war era when the economy demanded a more educated work force.

The fact that you focused on the psychological effects of 9/11 is also precisely what I said is wrong with how it was viewed. Just look at the absolute numbers - it doesn't matter how America was made to feel, the fact is that the effect of 9/11 on the population was negligible, and the reaction to it disproportionate.

So the President should have gone on TV and announced, "I know you're all concerned over the recent events of 9-11; you are angered and saddened by the murder of several thousand Americans and the billions of dollars of destruction... but get over it. More people die from smoking every year. More young Americans are killed in gang and drug-related activities... and so our priorities shall remain to rectify these problems."

How long do you think such a leader would remain in office?

Hence my point that we seem to latch onto grotesque images like the destruction of the towers, rather than on actually more damaging, but endemic problems that are permanent and out of sight.

Again... spell out these endemic problems and how we can set about rectifying them? Where do you draw the line at what the citizen is entitled to... especially when you consider that all these entitlements... all of the money spent by the government comes from the working taxpayers.

You both say that prioritising suffering is "ludicrous", but you didn't make a cogent argument. Why is it ludicrous? Tell me which would have been better: spending money on invading a foreign country in order to prevent future terrorist attacks which, in total, might affect a few thousand to a few tens of thousand of people, just for the sake of the public's psychological state and sense of entitled jingoism, or redistributing the same amount of money amongst services at home with the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of people into a better state than they were in before?

The "redistribution of the wealth". Spoken like a true Communist. Damn! I am quite liberal when it comes to social issues, but I don't buy into the notion that the role of the government is the redistribution of the wealth. Too what end? Why should I study hard and put in long hours working to improve myself when I can rely on a handout? I somehow suspect that the day Polednice actually gets a real job... and discovers just what a "joy" it is to go to work day after day, he will have a greatly different take on how much other are entitled to what he has earned.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nope, you got that wrong. There are _many_ more volcanic eruptions than black men being elected President of the US.


who says a volcanic eruption is a bad thing? without them this planet would be inhospitable. I dont think volcanic eruptions are a bad thing. Nor do is the color of a president considered a bad/good thing either. it just is.

i dont see where you are going with this.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> who says a volcanic eruption is a bad thing? without them this planet would be inhospitable. I dont think volcanic eruptions are a bad thing. Nor do is the color of a president considered a bad/good thing either. it just is.
> 
> i dont see where you are going with this.


Seems like you don't see much.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm retiring from this conversation. Either I'm a moron and cannot express myself, or people are just intent on misinterpreting me. Either way, I can't be bothered to push on with it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I'm retiring from this conversation. Either I'm a moron and cannot express myself, or people are just intent on misinterpreting me. Either way, I can't be bothered to push on with it.


Good idea; me too.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Anyone could have predicted Poley will start at least 18 new threads before this one ever gets to 18 pages.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The inner city children I teach sport cell phones (often the latest i-phones), have computers at home, and wear designer shirts and shoes. What else should we buy them using the tax dollars of others?


Via PM, SLGO clarified that he did not mean that welfare pays for designer clothes or that people are buying iPhones with welfare money, but that because of programs like food stamps poor people can use their own money to afford iPhones and designer clothes - they have that much.

As someone whose family has benefited from programs such as food stamps, and as someone who has lived in an "urban neighborhood," and as someone who has personally known dozens of homeless people in that neighborhood, I know from firsthand experience that this is a grossly inaccurate characterization of poverty in America, equivalent to slander. I am not proud of my family and no one I've ever known in similar situations was proud of their situation either, but to talk about them that way is viciously unfair, inaccurate, and offensive.

No one I've ever known in that situation had designer clothing or the latest gadgets. None at all. Zip. Zero. Zilch. It is rare for such people even to buy new clothing, let alone designer clothing. I know this as a veteran of used clothing shops, and hand-me-downs from cousins.

I take personal offense. It was an insult aimed _directly_ at people like _my parents_, my childhood friends and their parents, homeless people, and so on.

I'm not saying that such people should get more money. I have very little compassion for anyone, I on the contrary actually hate a lot of poor people, and I absolutely do not endorse any policies motivated by compassion or guilt. I'm also not saying that poor people do not deserve their poverty. My parents were poor because they made poor choices, as did their parents, and probably their grandparents, and so on who knows how far back. Fine. Maybe it would've been fairer or better if we'd been hungry. Fine. That's not what I'm talking about right now. I doubt that I'll be understood anyway, with so much willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation being the norm in this sort of discussion. But hopefully that'll help. What I am saying is that the poor in America are not the ones with iPhones or Cadillacs, and anyone with actual firsthand experience knows that very well. Pretending or arguing that the poorest people in the US have such goods is _slander_.

I have watched a homeless guy die, wearing several layers of clothing, likely given to him or dug out of garbage, to absorb the puss as a fungus ate through his skin. Forget healthcare or iPhones or designer clothing. Yeah, the world's tough, and he should've never done heroin, the habit that led to him getting AIDS, which left him vulnerable to some fungus, and if he couldn't cope with the stress of his life any other way I suppose he deserved to die, you can say all that if you want, or almost anything else. Fine. But you can't say he had designer clothing or a cell phone.

The people who afford such goods may live among poor people in poor neighborhoods where most of us would be afraid to venture, but _they_ are not the poor. Any kid with such goods has at least one parent with a job paying well more than minimum wage - or, they did when the goods were bought.

Perhaps SLGO spoke honestly and to the best of his knowledge. But he is at best ill-informed.

Of course there is little hope for better, fairer, discussion. But I have been there, personally, not as an observer but as the one with government cheese in the pantry. No designer clothes, no fancy gadgets. Neither me nor my friends in the same situation. And like I said, we probably all deserved our poverty, deserved even worse, and the world would probably be a better place if we'd had to suffer more, and we never went hungry or without shelter so there's nothing for me personally to complain about, but the point is not any of that. The sole point is that people with designer clothing and the latest gadgets are not the poor in the US. To pretend otherwise is to deny the existence of the actual poor, and to pretend that they are all uniformly dishonest - i.e. not actually poor, just pretending in order to get money to pay for food, so that they can use their own money to buy luxury goods.

To accuse my father, or anyone in his situation, of that is... well, I'm not sure I can describe it politely, and I'm doing my best to be polite. But I'm going to post this even if I get warned or even banned for it. Believe me, if this discussion happened in real life.... Suffice it to say that he has been humiliated many times in his life already. I'm not sure how many more times he needs to be kicked before it's done. But I'm sure he'd rather not have taken the money than have people think such things about him. Though I suppose a man with hungry kids is willing to suffer a lot of humiliation. Anyway, it wasn't all a lie so that we'd be able to buy designer clothes or Nintendo games or whatever. So don't be fooled by that characterization of poverty in the US.

Your tax dollars are buying _someone_'s kids luxury goods - but those are fairly well-connected people, not the poor.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Thanks, _science_. I know 'country poor' first hand; you have given me a glimpse of the other 90%.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I currently teach in one of the poorest districts in the US. The zip-code that my students come from has the highest level of housing foreclosures in the nation. 100% of my students fall under the federal poverty level and as such are labeled as "Title 1". They are eligible for free lunches, subsidized (or free) day care, pre-school, after-school tutoring, and many other services. The majority of the parents receive subsidized housing (Section 8). Some live in housing projects, but many others live in neighborhood houses paid for through Section 8... or in a good many of instances... they live with the grandparents or even great grandparents. Over 95% of my students come from a single-parent home... and in 90%+ of those instances that home is headed by a woman. This would seem to suggest that I may have some grasp on poverty in urban America.

Member Science may have experience as being raised among the poor, but his denial of my portrayal of the current state of poverty in urban America suggests he has little grasp on what things are like today... or perhaps his family simply did not know or wish to manipulate the system. The collapse of the family, especially among the urban black population, is not something unknown... and it has certainly contributed to the curent state of poverty and generational Welfare as it exists in urban America.

Among the various sources of state and federal aid available to those living in urban America, one can count Section 8 Housing, Welfare (with access to free medical services), WICK, subsidized utilities (including gas, electricity, heating oil, phone and internet lines). More than a few of our parents know how to play the system. Calling home to contact parents concerning behavioral or academic issues is commonly a challenge as the phone numbers frequently change. Parents sign up for service from one cell carrier and then drop them after the bills pile up and switch over to a new carrier. More than a fair share of parents receive added assistance because their child has been coded "Special Education." Rather than use this money to send the child to a school capable of best dealing with the child's need, they keep the child in the public school districts and pocket the money. More than a few parents have succeeded in having 4 or 5 children coded "Special Ed."

Now certainly, this should not be seen as a portrait of the poor or even the urban poor as a whole. There are certainly those who struggle to make ends meet in spite of working multiple jobs. We see these children coming to school wearing the same clothing for days on end. But the notion that what I speak of is but a minute portion of the poor in urban America is naive at best. I have a family member who is truly what you might call the "working poor". He is poorly educated and works at poorly-paid jobs where he has to put up with abuse and ridiculous hours because he can't afford to lose his job. Out of his little salary he must pay federal and state taxes, his rent, his food, his utilities, gasoline, car repairs, etc... He has no medical insurance (its far too expensive) and can only go to the emergency room when conditions become extreme. I have another family member who is closer to a great many of the parents in my district. She pays a little over $100 a month for a two-story house under Section 8. She receives Welfare, food stamps of $500+ a month, WICK (another $100+) for the youngest child. On top of this she works "under the table" (no taxes) and receives a large "refund" from the IRS each year because of her "lack of income" and 5 children. As a result she has enough money for cable TV and a large-screen TV, multiple cell phones, internet, two cars, and many other things that anyone who is truly "poor" might consider luxuries.

Now I will not suggest that I envy the second relative. In many ways she is trapped by the system. But at the same time she is far better off than many among the "working poor" and the reality is that she is far from being unique. It is such abuses that make continued entitlements unpopular with the voters who pay their taxes... not only with the wealthy, but more importantly with the middle-class and the working poor. I would guess that a majority of the parents in my school district have a standard of living closer to the second example than the first. More than a few parents (and their children) show up at the school frequently with new manicures, pedicures, and hair weaves. More than a few drive cars that are better than those driven by the teachers. While the students seemingly cannot afford pencils or notebooks they uniformly carry cell phones... often of the latest make... sport designer shoes and shirts, and stop off on the way to school to pick up bags of candy and chips.

Again, I do not envy these students or parents. Many have made their own bed and are trapped to an extent. They don't value education or see why they should value education. A good many walk to school past gangs, drug dealers, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc... every day. A great many of my students live with parents or siblings who are gang members, alcoholics, drug dealers, drug abusers, sexual/physical/psychological abusers. I, "who know nothing of poverty" had a student shot in the head... killed... last week... because he made a snide comment about somebody. My kids have almost all witnessed a shooting. They know what to do in a drive-by when they hear the guns popping. Few of the kids I teach have any real hope to escape the neighborhoods they live in (the 'hood). When parents invest more in their hair weaves and manicures and cars and cell phones than in their child's education, there isn't a strong sense of priorities. Teachers will frequently tell those parents who will listen to do whatever is needed to move out of the district and into a good school system... but drugs, gangs, peer pressure (It is considered "nerdish" or even "white" to do well in school) make it incredibly challenging for any child to escape the cycle. Honestly, few of us have a great deal of sympathy for the parents... it is the children, we realize... who are the real victims... And ultimately the nation as a whole due to the loss of productivity and the potential innovations and other achievements of these children. 

Again, my description of the "poor" is limited to the American urban "poor" as I see them at the present. Considering the poverty level across the district I doubt that my experiences are unique. Rural America and undoubtedly the past are something altogether different.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Thanks for the info, _Stlukes_.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I cannot pretend to know anyone like those *StlukesguildOhio* describes. From watching the news here in the *UK* you often hear about people on benefits (I think this is the *British* equivalent to welfare) that are supposedly paraplegic and in receipt of disability benefit only to be caught sky diving or on skiing holidays etc.

This causes big problems in the *UK* as it creates a lot of resentment among the dare I say less well educated public (partly fuelled by a rampant right-wing press). As a result governments crack down on welfare spending and end up taking away benefits from those who need them while those who can work the system continue to make money for nothing.

There are social problems caused by welfare in *France* and *Europe* as well although I would think their systems tend to be a little better than the *UK*'s. I've heard new immigrants to the *UK* can almost immediately start claiming benefits upon arrival here. This causes a lot of tension between *France* and the *UK* as it is the *French* who often are stuck trying to round up the illegal immigrants who find their way to *France* trying to enter the *UK*.

However I would like to stress this is only from what I have read in the newspapers or seen on the news over the years. I have never had experience of claiming welfare etc so have no idea how easy it is to claim for or the amounts of money involved.

Going back to *StlukesguildOhio*'s post I had no idea the *American* system was so complex. I had heard of the food stamp program but was unaware *America* had subsidized systems for housing and utility bills. Thanks for posting such an informative and in-depth answer *Stlukes*.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Even if we were to agree that abuses of welfare systems are extensive, and that there should be some kind of crack-down, do you not think it would be more reasonable to step back and acknowledge that these are minor ills compared to the far greater, far more damaging inequality between the ultra-rich and everyone else, and, given this, we should therefore be a little more reserved in our antagonistic representations of the poor?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Even if we were to agree that abuses of welfare systems are extensive, and that there should be some kind of crack-down, do you not think it would be more reasonable to step back and acknowledge that these are minor ills compared to the far greater, far more damaging inequality between the ultra-rich and everyone else, and, given this, we should therefore be a little more reserved in our antagonistic representations of the poor?


I was not saying that welfare should be taken away from the poor. Merely highlighting that it's not solely a *US* problem. I'm in favour of a socialist society. I think if the problems of poverty were dealt with in the third world then there wouldn't be as many immigrants coming to the west in the first place.

People in the west though are going to have to get used to paying proper prices for things. The fact that a lot of the jobs for the working and lower-middle classes have been moved to the third world where labour is cheap is part of the problem as well. If both these problems could be addressed then I doubt we'd be talking about this now.

However I don't see it happening what government is going to tell it's people they have to pay more for a pair of sports shoes? etc


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, whatever. I need to go break stuff.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Even if we were to agree that abuses of welfare systems are extensive, and that there should be some kind of crack-down, do you not think it would be more reasonable to step back and acknowledge that these are minor ills compared to the far greater, far more damaging inequality between the ultra-rich and everyone else, and, given this, we should therefore be a little more reserved in our antagonistic representations of the poor?

I have no problem with acknowledging this. The way taxes are applied in the US are anything but equitable. "Reaganomics" or the "trickle down economics" theory is based upon a false assumption that the rich create the jobs and so if left with more more money at their disposal (through lower taxes) they will create more jobs. The reality is that the consumers... the mass population... create the jobs. In a system that works on supply and demand the wealthy are not going to churn out more products (thus creating more jobs) if there is no demand. When the purchasing power of the middle-class and the poor decline, demand declines, and jobs decline.

When the economy was roaring along during the Clinton era, the tax rate on the wealthy was quite a bit higher than it is today. There was no complaint because businesses were doing far better... selling far more product. Under the Bush administration, against the best advice of economic experts, the taxes on the wealthy were lowered at the same time at which the nation was involved in a costly overseas war... a combination never before employed... because it was sheer stupidity and greed.

Out of pure curiosity I took a look at the tax break-down as recorded by the IRS a year or so ago. According to the the IRS records the wealthiest 2% of the nation earned something like 60%+ of the total income earned (I'm citing numbers from memory). They paid 60%+ of the total taxes collected. When expanded to the top 20% you found similar data. This population earned something like 75%+ of the total income reported... and paid an equivalent percentage of the taxes. Sounds fair, eh? The problem is that the total percentage of Americans paying no taxes due to an income level below a certain level has risen to some 20%+. This leaves us with the middle-class who are paying their own fair share of the taxes, as well as subsidizing the share of the poor.

What do you imagine the result of this current break-down? The middle-class increasingly resent the fact that they are subsidizing the services used by the poor. This resentment grows as the poor are seemingly allotted more and more entitlements without any expectation that they do anything to earn these. The resentment grows further when the press manipulate the extremes of system abuse: the so-called "Welfare Queens", families living for generations on public assistance, abuse of the disability benefits, etc... As a result, a great many of the middle-class direct their anger and frustration at the wrong target... at the poor... rather that at the government and the wealthy who manipulate the government to their advantage. Far too many vote against their own better interests. The cynic in me suspects that this situation... not unlike generational Welfare and the perpetuation of substandard education for the poor... are intentionally designed by the government to perpetuate the advantages of those currently in power. I also suspect this will not change until the middle-class begin to really feel the pinch and we move on from a two-party system... or we see something along the line of a revolution.

Recently, I was reading on the French Revolution, and I came across a line the jumped out at me. The author wrote that when the poor and ill-educated were struggling and suffering under the regime, nothing happened... but when the lawyers, and doctors, and teachers and the educated middle-class could no longer afford to pay their rent or buy their groceries, all hell broke loose.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I was not saying that welfare should be taken away from the poor. Merely highlighting that it's not solely a US problem. I'm in favour of a socialist society. I think if the problems of poverty were dealt with in the third world then there wouldn't be as many immigrants coming to the west in the first place.

People in the west though are going to have to get used to paying proper prices for things. The fact that a lot of the jobs for the working and lower-middle classes have been moved to the third world where labour is cheap is part of the problem as well. If both these problems could be addressed then I doubt we'd be talking about this now.

Now you are talking of a whole other barrel of problems. Immigration, in the US, at least, is simply one more means by which the Neo-cons cynically redirect the frustrations of the middle-class away from the government and the wealthy. For the most part the jobs taken by immigrants in the US are jobs that no American wants: sub-minimum wage jobs working in agriculture or under conditions nearly equivalent to the indentured servant in restaurants. The targeting of immigrants by the Neo-cons is also racist in nature... and plays upon the fears of many whites who fear they are "losing the nation". The reality is that immigration has long been one of the greatest strengths of the US. When you consider the sort of motivation it takes for an individual to pack up and move to another nation... often leaving family behind... leaving friends and the culture he or she knows behind... and face the challenges of learning a foreign language, a foreign culture, etc... immigrants are often among the most motivated of individuals. Of the large cadre of Russians who moved to the US toward the final days of the USSR, many invested in businesses in the US. Indeed, a sizable percentage of all the small businesses in the US were begun by immigrants or their children. The stupidity and racism of US immigration policy following the return of Hong Kong to the Chinese resulted in our refusing an "inordinate" amount of Chinese immigrants to enter the US (Fear that the US would become too Asian... and even less "white".) Our loss was Canada's gain as a great influx of highly educated Chinese has helped to bolster their economy.

The huge divide between wealthy and poor nations is another problem altogether... and one I am not certain can be fixed by the assistants of the wealthier nations. Obviously, the wealthiest nations have long profited by the poverty of others. Cheap labor overseas means cheap computers, TVs, clothes, shoes, bananas, oranges, etc... for us in the wealthy nations. The United States assumed its overwhelming economic superiority as a result of WWII which left virtually the rest of the industrialized world in rubble, forcing everyone to buy American. Consequently, with such wealth and such incredible purchasing power, Americans were soon buying everything from everyone else.

As Germany, and Japan rebuilt and began to assert themselves in the world economy, there were continual fears that we would soon be passed and decline into third-world status. We here this again as the Chinese grow wealthier. This concept is built upon the faulty assumption that wealth is finite... that there is a set amount of wealth to go around and that if Nation B begins to grow wealthier then Nation A, by default, must decline. But is this true? I cannot see that the US economy declined as a result of the growth of the European economies after reconstruction or the incredible growth of the Japanese economy. Certain industries in the US collapsed... while others grew. I can say from my own experience that in many ways my standard of living is well above that of my parents and certainly my grandparents. I suspect that the great majority of those who live in Britain, or France, or Germany will need to admit that their standard of living surpasses that of their ancestors when Britain and France and Germany were great world empires.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> "Reaganomics" or the "trickle down economics" theory is based upon a false assumption that the rich create the jobs and so if left with more more money at their disposal (through lower taxes) they will create higher jobs.


30 years later I still hear this same specious argument repeated ad nauseum by republican politicians, talking heads etc. But nobody ever follows up with the obvious question. OK then, where are the jobs???


----------

