Speaking Truth To Powerlessness
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/26/speaking_truth_to_powerlessness.php
The January 25 issue of The New York Times reported a recent study on the costs of child poverty. According to the study’s authors, child poverty also incurs costs to society as poor children age: they earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses. Not exactly surprising, but the documentation is nearly irrefutable.
As a result, even the usual deniers were quieted. Said the Times, “A Republican scholar and former official who testified at the hearing, Ron Haskins, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the study superb…”
But, Haskins cautioned the House Ways and Means Committee, “Do not think that if we suddenly gave a bunch of money to poor people, everything would change." Instead, he explained, as the Times wrote, “…behaviors, neighborhoods and parents’ actions need to change if children’s life paths are to change.”
“Poor people!” Haskins all but stated, “your problem isn’t a lack of money, it’s your bad behavior.”
I stand in awe of the naked, cheesy, pompous effrontery of the man. Not since the days of Ronald Reagan has the doctrine of financial Darwinism been so concisely and unselfconsciously delivered.
Most of us who are not poor harbor a suspicion that there’s something to what Haskins is saying, but few say it. But finally, we’ve found a man who has the courage to speak truth to powerlessness. The trouble with this belief—and it is a belief—is that there’s no credible evidence to back it up.
There are no statistics that I know of that clearly associate virtue with income level. Or, that immoral behavior is the domain of the impecunious. There is evidence that the two groups commit different kinds of crimes and misdemeanors. Drunkenness and drug addiction is enjoyed by all classes more or less equally. But wealthy drunks and drug addicts, for instance, don’t usually gather around street corners, thereby avoiding arrest for loitering. Nor do poor people tend to commit stock fraud or resort to offshore banks.
It’s well known that the better classes don’t spend beyond their means, over consume or abuse their spouses and children. Nor do they essentially set fire to their money by frequenting any of the hundreds of casinos that seem to pop up daily. No, they dependably spend their money on refinements and wholesome family activities.
The truth is, cheaters, bullies, pilferers and layabouts inhabit all the classes and income levels. Those with money, however, are better hidden and protected from the legal and financial consequences of bad behavior. The poor are not.
To Haskins, on the other hand, giving money to the poor is like throwing gasoline on a fire. They would squander it all on dope and bling, never using it for housing, food or on their children. I would bet that Haskins believes that homelessness cannot be alleviated by providing housing; it, too, is a behavioral condition that needs a firm moral orthodontist, not four walls and a roof.
This argument has been around since nobility was invented, and was given broader subscription since the growth of the bourgeoisie. It had gone underground for several decades in the wake of the New Deal and its international counterparts, but it was given new life by Thatcher and Reagan. Their doctrine was clearly stated: the poor are helped by taking money away from them. Disencumbering the poor from their housing subsidies, food stamps, rent control, public schooling and underwritten medical care, goes the story, makes them nimbler and more ready to stand on their own two feet—providing they’re willing to forego child care and labor for minimum wage.
That a right-wing economist like Ron Haskins would restate this doctrine isn’t so surprising. But that The Times doesn’t challenge it as nonsense is somewhat appalling.
So, let me make what passes for a revolutionary statement these days: The reason people are poor is that they don’t have enough money.
And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.
The January 25 issue of The New York Times reported a recent study on the costs of child poverty. According to the study’s authors, child poverty also incurs costs to society as poor children age: they earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses. Not exactly surprising, but the documentation is nearly irrefutable.
As a result, even the usual deniers were quieted. Said the Times, “A Republican scholar and former official who testified at the hearing, Ron Haskins, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the study superb…”
But, Haskins cautioned the House Ways and Means Committee, “Do not think that if we suddenly gave a bunch of money to poor people, everything would change." Instead, he explained, as the Times wrote, “…behaviors, neighborhoods and parents’ actions need to change if children’s life paths are to change.”
“Poor people!” Haskins all but stated, “your problem isn’t a lack of money, it’s your bad behavior.”
I stand in awe of the naked, cheesy, pompous effrontery of the man. Not since the days of Ronald Reagan has the doctrine of financial Darwinism been so concisely and unselfconsciously delivered.
Most of us who are not poor harbor a suspicion that there’s something to what Haskins is saying, but few say it. But finally, we’ve found a man who has the courage to speak truth to powerlessness. The trouble with this belief—and it is a belief—is that there’s no credible evidence to back it up.
There are no statistics that I know of that clearly associate virtue with income level. Or, that immoral behavior is the domain of the impecunious. There is evidence that the two groups commit different kinds of crimes and misdemeanors. Drunkenness and drug addiction is enjoyed by all classes more or less equally. But wealthy drunks and drug addicts, for instance, don’t usually gather around street corners, thereby avoiding arrest for loitering. Nor do poor people tend to commit stock fraud or resort to offshore banks.
It’s well known that the better classes don’t spend beyond their means, over consume or abuse their spouses and children. Nor do they essentially set fire to their money by frequenting any of the hundreds of casinos that seem to pop up daily. No, they dependably spend their money on refinements and wholesome family activities.
The truth is, cheaters, bullies, pilferers and layabouts inhabit all the classes and income levels. Those with money, however, are better hidden and protected from the legal and financial consequences of bad behavior. The poor are not.
To Haskins, on the other hand, giving money to the poor is like throwing gasoline on a fire. They would squander it all on dope and bling, never using it for housing, food or on their children. I would bet that Haskins believes that homelessness cannot be alleviated by providing housing; it, too, is a behavioral condition that needs a firm moral orthodontist, not four walls and a roof.
This argument has been around since nobility was invented, and was given broader subscription since the growth of the bourgeoisie. It had gone underground for several decades in the wake of the New Deal and its international counterparts, but it was given new life by Thatcher and Reagan. Their doctrine was clearly stated: the poor are helped by taking money away from them. Disencumbering the poor from their housing subsidies, food stamps, rent control, public schooling and underwritten medical care, goes the story, makes them nimbler and more ready to stand on their own two feet—providing they’re willing to forego child care and labor for minimum wage.
That a right-wing economist like Ron Haskins would restate this doctrine isn’t so surprising. But that The Times doesn’t challenge it as nonsense is somewhat appalling.
So, let me make what passes for a revolutionary statement these days: The reason people are poor is that they don’t have enough money.
And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.
As germane as that may be, it plays right into the hands of people like Haskins who already state that nothing changes by giving money to the poor.
It's a verbal thing, I know.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I tend to think people have the brains to make choices and that they aren't existing like some single-celled organism - only reacting to heat and light.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes I do realize that those two examples aren't equal, but in the end, I believe people have the power to choose their reaction. I think it's dangerous to think that they do not.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
When we try to fit who we are into contrived packages to fit our manmade systems rather than fulfill our truth and our life promise, to me, we've got it completely backwards. Our systems currently reflect our backwards manmade structures, and how out of synch with truth and life they are in some far-reaching ways.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sigh.....
Seems odd since child poverty is on the rise in many industrial nations that "give people access to enough money". As a matter of fact, the United States has seen the highest (or close to the highest) decrease in child poverty in the last ten years. Those ten years have also been marked by tougher welfare standards.
Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.
While I'll agree that money is not a 'cure all', it's a bit short-sided to suggest that all poor folks would handle money poorly.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't suggest that at all.
I did suggest that these poor people didn't do anything to earn that money. If they had, they wouldn't need it to be given to them.
The true value of money is dictated by the effort that went in to earning it. When that effort is zero, the value of that money becomes zero. Bought milk lately?
where did you get that info??
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004
I was talking about growth rates in child poverty, not overall child poverty.
See page 7.
http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf
and i think the chart on pg. 6 is mroe relevant don't you think?
your stat is misleading in that the US has one of the highest levels of child poverty rates thus a change in it would seem to be more significant ... and although i haven't read the whole thing - i doubt you will find a link between welfare standards and a reduction ... in fact - according to the same report ...
*******
also from pg. 7
It shows, for example, that higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates (Figure 10).
*******
No. The issue being discussed is increasing free money to the poor in order to decrease child poverty. The United States decreased free money to the poor in the 90s, but child poverty here fell. Conversely, some nations on that list increased free money to the poor in the 90s, but child poverty rose. The argument presented in the original article made it sound like free money was simply the cure-all to child poverty. The issue is much more complex.
In total numbers, yes. Those figures are percentages, not total numbers.
Hehe...of course "higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates". The question is not association -- the question is whether or not government spending actually is the most effective way to address child poverty.
The current child poverty rate (UNICEF) in the US is 22%, I believe. The actual stat using poverty lines instead of medians is roughly 18%, I think.
You are correct. Money is not a cure all. It does not solve the underlying and actual problems. What would you suggest in terms of problem solving?
Also can you define "tangible benefit to society"? How many people do you know, or have you personally known who have absolutely no skills, just out of curiousity?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
if that is the case - then you are on an upward trend ...
either way - there is a correlation between social spending and child poverty rates ... for one of the richest countries in the world to have a child poverty rate close to mexico is embarassing is it not?
i don't think it is necessarily a function of increasing spending but clearly what is being done now is not nearly enough unless a stat like this is acceptable to people ...
Double-speak, ffg.............What would 'qualify' as 'earning' the money? Would an inheritance qualify? How about a small business loan? I have a friend that did nothing but apply for a loan, but did amazing things with the money (started and grew his business).
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'd suggest that we actual start by looking at what it means to be poor. To me, being poor is not a relative measure against society. Rather, being poor is a relative measure against survival.
You don't need me to define this. You define it yourself every time you willingly exchange money for a product or service. I do the same. The things I buy have an obvious benefit to me. Buying off the poor, just because they're poor, has no benefit to me. If it has benefit to you, then by all means do it.
Not many.
See my answer to angelica. You, like her, answer this question yourself everyday.
Of course, but you're thinking about it backwards. It qualifies to the gifter, not the receiver.
Did he force the loaner to grant him the loan? If not, then yes he earned it.
Yes, we are. So is social spending.
Yes there certainly is. There is a higher correlation, however, between poverty rates and coffee consumption.
Not at all. A country isn't "rich", unless you're talking about natural resources. People are rich. And this country has a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people. Why would either of those things be "embarassing"?
What is being done now is certainly not "nearly enough", if the only measure of success is a stat.
Are you then saying that "tangible benefit" in your mind is only providing a service that is "worth" or given financial compensation? Seriously?
Maybe we're not really talking about people with no skills here. Maybe the situation is far, far more complex than that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No. I'm perfectly fine with any help you want to give the poor, or any help I want to give the poor. What I'm not fine with is being forced to help anyone.
I do not believe in social services. I think you're aware of this. I believe in charity. I believe in employment. I believe in education. I believe in entrepenuership.
Ok.
In economics, yes. In total, certainly not. But we're talking about giving people money here, right? Do you give your boyfriend or friends cash for good conversations?
Yes.
The situation is very complex. Which makes me wonder why the proposed solution -- here's some cash -- is so stupidly simple.
Here is where I am seeing a huge problem: when we remove economics in a contrived, unrealistic and false vacuum from the totality of life, we distort the value and meaning of the information gleaned in economics, based on the faulty premises it rests upon (false vacuum). For example, you can tune out the non-"tangible" values "poor" people bring to the planet, and the many variables that don't really count in economics. Just like know1 can tune out the life drives inherent to "poor people". And yet the whole-istic REALity is very, very far removed from economics and from logic alone. Including issues such as poverty costing everyone in the long run in other ways that aren't so neatly held by our man-made and contrived structures for interpreting this information. With our existing man-made false and contrived structures, we currently allow this "fallout" to rest on the shoulders of the "poor", helping perpetuate the cycles of low-self esteem by our blame/judgments. And yet we all create and sustain this system, and in reality, we all pay some big costs in one way or another. We just ignore what we can't yet make sense of.
I'm challenging our entire monetary value systems alongside the concept of actual value. I'm not trying to make things of actual value fit our existing structures if the existing structures are faulty and ignorant of much that is of value. That would be a flawed route for me.
In my life as a "poor person", throwing cash at me has not ever solved my problems. Sometimes it's worked as a flimsy bandaid. It's not even close to being a solution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hehe...here's the thing: I don't see a child being poor as a "problem" in need of solving. I see starving children as a problem. The solution there is to give them food and to prepare them to earn their own food when they're old enough. I see children living on the street as a problem. The solution there is to give them a roof and to prepare them to build their own someday. I see children who have drug-addicted parents as a problem. The solution there is to give those children an environment outside of that drug-house, and to prepare them to build their own one day.
If you want children to be richer, then give them a job or just give them whatever money you want to. But your question is far too simple to be answered.
Completely agree. But that's the whole purpose of "child poverty" statistics.
Hehe...but then why are you using that same economic base as a starting point to separate poor children from rich ones when you define your "problem"?
Sure.
Ok. Then get rid of money. Don't hold it as a value.
Cool.
I understand the falsity of free money and the false sense of security it offers. I also understand the illusion of "richer" when one is not interactively tied into that process. The intention behind my question was to look at what the real issues are, and to move into generating ideas about real solutions.
I agree.
Did you notice that I used quotes around the word poor throughout my post? Once I came to understand my own personal purposes beyond victimhood in my life, and once I came to move beyond the ugly stigma of "poverty" (and that took HUGE work! and is still not entirely done!) I realised the illusions inherent in the victim/rescuer/persecutor cycles. Therefore in my questions to you here today, I'm not at all concerned with rescuing some less-wealthy people. I am concerned with the values we are de-ascribing to the less-wealthy folks. I'm concerned with the illusion that they have little that is tangible to offer if they don't have money to represent that worth, and I am concerned with the idea that they have no skills if they don't have money to back up their value. My children and I continually talk about how blessed and how rich we've been.
So because I'm developing my thinking regarding what I see as faulty systems, you think I should get rid of money and not hold it with value? That sounds a little extreme to me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why would you want to participate in "faulty systems"? If you see money as a flawed approach to dealing with the exchange between human beings, then do something else. That was my only point there.