<p>When I lived in India, we used to joke (but seriously) that you could tell the wealth of a city by the number of people living in sewer pipes. As the city swelled, sewers would be built out to the outskirts for new businesses and housing for the wealthy and, as there was no housing for the workers, they literally used to live, families and all, in the sewer pipes being laid. I have pictures. The “compassionate conservatives” would probably offer them pillows. The liberals would chalk it up as the price of progresss. </p>
<p>One thing is certain, though: no matter how many sewer workers became educated, practiced birth control, and worked their way up to pencil-pushing, the need for sewer workers and livers would not only remain the same, but would actually increase as the pencil-pushers required places to live. One other thing was true at the same time: no matter how intelligent or motivated the sewer liver, he and his family were one accident, one case of dysentery, one seasonal flood, or (in the areas I knew) one deliberate chemical spill in the waterway away from living on the scrap heap, something that the “economy” absolutely requires. It is this very marginality that provides the economy with its engine (as companies that hire illegal immigrants are very quick to point out.)</p>
<p>We have been talking about the poor and bankruptcy…
What about the ethics of the people in charge. The same people that are cutting benefits for the poor are now being investigated by the dozens. There’s Duke Cunningham, who turned out to be rich for the wrong reason and 60 other congressman are being investigated. Human nature seems to drive people to cheat others on all sides of the spectrum and until all you compassionate conservatives confess that the rich are not more moral we have a true problem. Their excesses are always excused and semi accepted.
I don’t think CEO’s deserve what they are paid all the while ignoring the needs of their workers, whether by outsourcing, layoffs or cutting benefits, while earning more and more and more… Do you hold the abusive rich CEO’s in distain or are they honorable? Is it just smart business??</p>
<p>laura~
Did you read my post? That’s EXACTLY what I said. I’m not sure I would consider myself a “compassionate conservative” though…I just tend to use common sense. ~berurah</p>
<p>Berurah, you sort of said that…in one line somewhere in the larger text. It’s harder to work yourself up today than it was in our day. I see it all the time. We wouldn’t all be on this site if we didn’t understand that a college education is important today.
I actually know homeless people, who were well to do and others who went bankrupt. They were good people in bad circumstances. Many companies cheat people and leave them with nothing, so maybe I just see things differently though my experience. Being in the NY suburbs is a more expensive place to live, so maybe it’s easier to become homeless than other places.</p>
<p>I actually thought I made that very clear, but sorry if I didn’t. I can totally understand what you are saying, and for the cases you’ve cited, I would be in agreement with you. My own BIL was the victim of a layoff after 50 in a highly specialized field. He has since found something else, but it was a rough go for awhile. I am NOT defending the companies who devastate people’s futures…in fact, my dh’s company was recently bought out and his pension will be grossly affected. What I am TRYING to say is that there is a vast difference between those who put at least SOME effort into their futures, provided that they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to do so and those who have come to feel entitled to help for extended periods when they are clearly NOT helpless. IMHO these people cannot all be lumped into the same category any more than all “rich” people can. ~berurah</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that in many cities you need two incomes to pay the bills- that hasn’t been news for a long time.
I assume with two kids- there is another parent someplace- isnt that parent working?
Yes child care is expensive- that is why we used babysiting co-ops -trade offs —bartering— one day shift one night… so we could continue to live within our means with a high school education and a blue collar income.
We are still in a house that is less than 1000 ft- many people would never consider living someplace that small- but unless you want to live way beyond your means- you stick with what you can afford.
Seattle/King county already subsidizes housing- you could get a very low interest loan to buy a house even if you made $20,000 more a year than what we make.
some of the public housing is really nice- we have some in our neighborhood- my mom even has some in her condo on main street in bellevue- lots of subsidized help for families- true you have to jump through some hoops- sometimes a lot of hoops- but its help- and its out there.</p>
<p>For low income housing- tenants pay 30% of their income for rent- is that what most people pay? You want to know the percentage of our income that goes toward- mortgage- repairs- house taxes and ins?
I don’t even want to think about it :(</p>
<p>“What I am TRYING to say is that there is a vast difference between those who put at least SOME effort into their futures, provided that they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to do so and those who have come to feel entitled to help for extended periods when they are clearly NOT helpless.”</p>
<p>It makes us feel good to differentiate between “good” poor people and “bad” poor people, but that misses the point. The system REQUIRES poor people, and with too many “good” poor people moving up, it has to manufacture more at the bottom, or the whole thing collapses. </p>
<p>“We are still in a house that is less than 1000 ft- many people would never consider living someplace that small- but unless you want to live way beyond your means- you stick with what you can afford.
Seattle/King county already subsidizes housing- you could get a very low interest loan to buy a house even if you made $20,000 more a year than what we make.”</p>
<p>That’s all well and good, and is true for most low income people as well , because, if it wasn’t, 33% of the population of Seattle would be living on the streets. And they don’t. Poor people tend to be very resourceful. They have to be. But they live on the margin - an illness without health insurance, or a debilitating illness that makes them unable to work, or any number of exigencies, and that’s where they are. Of course, they could live in the sewer pipes, and some do live in the equivalent.</p>
<p>Let’s take it as a given that the socialism of the rich can’t exist without people living on the margins. That’s not a value judgment, just the way it is. A low-wage workforce is the engine of profit, and the source of vaunted trickle down that both Reps and Dems embrace, either on its own in the Rep version, or to be creamed for other purposes in the Dems version. So, really, the only question - and it has nothing to do with “good” poor people vs. “bad” poor people - is what level of marginality is acceptable in the society in which you wish to live. “Compassionate conservatives” have made it very clear what they consider that to be.</p>
<p>There was a time when democrats were a little more responsive to the lower income and middle class. We did get the New Deal. Of course, we had to have a depression first. </p>
<p>Now both parties are bought by corporations so we need a worker party. There is a huge opportunity to start one, but I guess we will have to have a very bad economic event first.</p>
<p>I find it a little ironic that the kind of country the compassionate conservatives want will actually destroy most of them economically in the end. The depressions we used to have weren’t too kind to the wealthy either. If we get the economy the way the compassionate conservatives want, depressions will happen. Yes, you will get economic booms, but you will also get busts that wipe out almost everybody. Stock market crashes that don’t recover. Real estate crashes. Massive job losses. The elimination of consumers. That’s what Lassez Faire gets us. The 30+ percent of the economy that is driven by government. That’s a nice cushion against catastrophic events.</p>
<p>Just so’s ya know, mini, differentiating thusly doesn’t make me feel any particular way. Your statement merely attempts to cloud my very logical one and portray me in a false light. But whatever… ~b.</p>
<p>You know, driver, maybe that turns <em>you</em> into a cynic. It makes me feel kind of good that so many people are willing to help people without feeling the need to check every detail about them. Isn’t it amazing that humans can and do help strangers?</p>
No, I don’t find that amazing at all. Throughout my life, it has seemed to me that that is humanity’s natural default position, especially in bad times. It’s unfortunate when the actions of charlatans–whether they be the Katrina fakers, or the hired help-turned murderers, or the scammers who play on your heartstrings with the “need money for gas” story (that one’s happened to me, too) cause us to be more circumspect in exercising that human urge to help.</p>
<p>“Just so’s ya know, mini, differentiating thusly doesn’t make me feel any particular way. Your statement merely attempts to cloud my very logical one and portray me in a false light. But whatever… ~b.”</p>
<p>For the record, I distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people - rich, poor, and neither. It was something I was brought up to do, and I do believe those distinctions are very real, and I work with those distinctions in real life. But it doesn’t cloud the way I think about the needs of an economic system to accomplish its very real ends, the need for a marginal, low-wage workforce. </p>
<p>In my day job, I push paper around in such a way that, with any luck and some motivation, a few “bad” people (those with alcohol or drug addiction) turn into “good” people. I’m delighted when it happens, and I’d be pleased if it happened more often. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’m signfiicantly impacting the pool of “bad” people, not with the U.S. spending billions in Afghanistan with the direct result being the massive revival of the opium trade, or the mega-billion dollar corporate budgets for alcohol. My helping a poor woman with two kids get more education and training so she can get a better job and lead a better life does not reduce the economic demand for Wal-Mart workers, where she works now. </p>
<p>I’m not at all cynical about this. I put in my energies where I can make a little difference, and while the socialism of the rich holds sway (which it will for a long time), I put energies in raising the floor for marginal workers, with the hope that we don’t start housing them in sewer pipes.</p>
<p>For the record, I consider you one of the very few uber-liberals I “know” that does “put his money where his mouth is”. That you engage in work that supports and fosters your beliefs is, IMHO, very admirable. Unfortunately, the vast majority of ultra-liberals I know does not follow your example. They lament the “system” and denigrate “compassionate conservatives” while sipping expensive wines on exotic vacations. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A PERSONAL STATEMENT REFERRING <em>ONLY</em> TO PEOPLE THAT <em>I</em> KNOW!!! Woo. Are they any more “compassionate” than I? They talk the talk…most do not walk the walk. I contribute financially where I can and with time whenever I am able. That I prefer to help those who I consider to be in true need is <em>O.K.</em>…there will always be some out there who don’t give a flip whether someone is “posing” as a victim just to get free stuff, and THEY can “help” the others. </p>
<p>Berurah: exactly how much money and time does someone have to spend on “the poor and disadvantaged” before they can safely sip wine on exotic vacations and not be called a hypocrite? </p>
<p>I say this as someone who both teaches and volunteers in the public schools, donated a portion of business profits to Katrina victims, donates money to public and private schools. </p>
<p>Is that enough to allow me to enjoy my wine guilt-free when I go to Italy? Can I SCUBA dive in Fiji? Does it matter that I help support a lot of people when I spend money traveling?</p>
<p>At #25, wyogal states: “Swbutterfly: Frankly, youre the smug one. Who said anything about sin? Or Paris Hilton? Or the rich? Dont have a cogent argument? Bash the rich. Works every time.”</p>
<p>You characterized poverty (I believe you added “with very few exceptions”) as “primarily a behavorial dysfunction.” Your assertion was unsupported, of course, as it is unsupportable. To equate poverty, as a general matter, to behaviorial dysfunction is to attack the character of poor people. That is where the equation to sin comes in. As to the reference to the rich, I was simply taking your argument (such as it is) to its logical but absurd conclusion. </p>
<p>I think CC should create its own version of The Christmas Carol with wyogal starting as good ol’ Ebenezer. Maybe we could even rename you “Woegal”. </p>
<p>Finally, as to the use of the term smug, it was frankly the nicest thing I could say. It is after all, nearly Christmas. Bah Humbug.</p>
<p>Berurah: I know that wasn’t directed at me. However, I think the issue you raise is an interesting one. Do people get credits for the “good works” they do, allowing them to criticize those who don’t do such “good works?” If so, how many “good works” do you have to do, and what kind, before issuing what criticisms? On a related note, can I say the government should do different things with taxes–provide health care, for example?–if I don’t pay any?</p>