The line for food starts forming at 7:30 each morning. Mostly women, many small children and some single men are shaking off daybreak’s chill hoping to be one of the first 100 people let into the Storehouse, New Mexico’s largest emergency food pantry. It isn’t that this free food distribution center, located just off Albuquerque’s historic Route 66, is stingy;… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (47)Page 1 of 1 pagesReading these figures and trying to understand the logic of crushing the poor while heaping rewards on the rich reminds of Kurt Vonnegut’s great quote, “True terror is waking up one morning to discover that your old high school classmates are running the country”.
Actually, I think my classmates could have done a better job.
Posted by Margaret on May 2, 2005 at 8:45 AM Some food programs have already been discontinued. An HIV/AIDS drop-in center in Fresno, CA was forced to shut the doors to its Food Pantry because funding was simultaneously cut and diverted to faith-based food programs. Not very nice, but also not surprising due to the fact that Fresno is a major agriculture hub in the central valley. Farmers before AIDS patients.
Posted by Bill on May 2, 2005 at 9:58 AM We don’t need food stamps.
Tax cuts will “raise all boats”! Reduce services. It puts more money into the hands of the poor. They can buy more lottery tickets and hope for the best!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on May 3, 2005 at 6:47 AM What’s the matter with you people. Don’t you know that we live in an “ownership society.” No more free government handouts. Everything is privately owned - the food, water, air, land, even the words you speak are owned. Pretty soon you’ll have to pay royalties for your thoughts benevalently loaned to you by private industry.
I think it should be called the “bonership society.” You bend over and Bush bones you.
Posted by Lefty on May 3, 2005 at 8:39 AM L&P;is right. Giving money to the poor is just like buying lottery tickets for them. At least with food stamps they are strongly encouraged to buy food for themselves and their children - as opposed to buying lottery tickets, booze or cigerettes (yes i know, it is commom to use food stamps for these products, but it is discouraged by forcing them to either cheat or barter).
Even the conservativces should agree. The poor are like children and need to be cared for. So lets spend common (government) money on not only (attempting) on feeding them, lets invest in educating them (vocational technical schools in particular).
Posted by Martha on May 3, 2005 at 8:42 AM “L&P;is right. Giving money to the poor is just like buying lottery tickets for them.”
“The poor are like children and need to be cared for.”
The above are from Martha. Are these thoughts commonly held by the left, or are they just one individual’s understanding?
Posted by platte on May 3, 2005 at 10:45 AM “The poor are like children” How demeaning. Having less money than other people, doesn’t meen they are stupid. I don’t think these are thoughts commonly held by the left. The poor are in need and less fortunate therefore need to be taken care of in this society of very unequal opportunities.
Posted by linda on May 3, 2005 at 11:40 AM Saying the poor are “like children” may in fact be demeaning. But there is definitely a strong correlation between being poor and having a low IQ (this should not surprise anyone - do we really expect the bottom 25% to be as able as the top 25%, for instance). So i guess one could make the claim that the poor are in fact stupid, at least statistically.
But no matter how you slice it, the poor are our obligation. We (the more fortunate) need to care for our less able brethren. And to do that, we need not only to provide resources to them, but we need to do it in such a way as to limit how they use those resources. So as Martha alludes to above, it would be foolish to allow them to choose to spend their allotments on frivious or destructive purchases. . .
Posted by Pat on May 3, 2005 at 12:50 PM Pat don’t forget that 50% of intelligence is due to one’s environment and upbringing. Most poor folks grew up poor, and intellecual stimulation is low on the priority list of such families and neighborhoods.
Anyway G.W Bush is part of the top 20% and he’s doing quite well. SO much for that intelligence crap.
Food stamps will be cut, social security will be gutted, the entire welfare state will dissapear in the next 15 years. The reason is simple: capitalism is in its death throws. This is not an American phenomenon it is happening everywhere on this planet. Capitalism is about growth, and continuous accumualtion. There has been an uninterrupted decline in growth rates in the OECD countries since the end of the 1960s (respectively 5.2%, 3.5%, 2.8%, 2.6%, and 2.2% for the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and the years 2000-04).
THis is the root cause of the death of the welfare state. It doesn’t matter who’s in office because the socialists in Europe are doing the same thing theres. THere’s no more room for high wages for workers, for expensive welfare measures etc. THe rulers are taking us back to 19th century conditions. At the same time armament expenses soar in most countries.
Wake up people, it’s time to take over this planet. Capitalism is in its death agony, the question is what will replace it.
Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on May 3, 2005 at 1:31 PM You know, I wonder how much gets wasted on military. I don’t say that to be anti-military. I say it with skeptical scrutiny. At well over $400 billion per year (more than the rest of the world combined by far), I know that paying personnel isn’t, by any means, the largest part of that allocation. Where’s the conservatism to see how much of the that is redundant, superfluous, mismanaged pork? How competitive are the contracts? How much of it amounts to pork favors? What parts do little to enhance what is needed for the military to do it’s job?
And why can’t one ask these questions without being accused of gutting the military and leaving us vunerable?!?!I’ll bet the same groaning cold-hearts that look to cut from the $3o-something billion could easily find some waste in the $400-something billion that amounts to at least $10 billion. And I’m being nice!!!
Posted by John on May 3, 2005 at 1:32 PM “But there is definitely a strong correlation between being poor and having a low IQ “ Pat.
Really, where is the data for this correlation. Even if you have data, correlation is not cause and effect. The poor may not be poor because they have a low IQ; they may have a low IQ because they’re poor, nutrition and health care being necessary for any developing brain. The last time arguments like Pat and Martha’s were taken seriously, there was a eugenics movement, but that was seventy-five years ago. Haven’t we all gotten smarter since then?
Posted by platte on May 3, 2005 at 1:44 PM Point of clarification to my post:
that 30-something billion is welfare and food stamps combined.
While I’m at it, I suppose one answer to my own question is that those nice juicy contracts go to companies like Lockheed Martin which trades on the NYSE. Cutting unnecessary funds to such companies would lower stock prices, hurt investors and cost jobs. Fine. But isn’t that all kind of articfial wealth?? I’m a restaurant owner. Why doesn’t the govenment agree buy $500,000 worth of food from me and hand it out as a perk to governemnt employees?? I’ll hire a few more people!!
Posted by John on May 3, 2005 at 1:46 PM I find some of the comments posted to be very disturbing, and I wonder how many of the commentators have ever come into contact with poor people. There is as much of a range of character, intelligence, honesty, sensitivity (and any other human quality you could name) among the populations of poor or disadvantaged people as their is among the rich, the middle-class, conservatives, liberals, etc. This is axiomatic. “The poor” are no more like children than “the rich.” And I find the comment about the “correlation between being poor and having a low IQ” to be not only irrelevant, but a bit disturbing, as well.
I believe that Liberal AND Proud was being facetious and worry that Martha seemed to believe that she/he was serious and built upon that delusion to disturbing effect.
To respond to Platte: No, these thoughts are not commonly held by “the left,” or indeed by any people of discernment, understanding, and compassion, regardless of political alliance or religious affiliation. Unfortunately, there are people who “demonize” the poor, or file them away under some convenient category of things to care about from time to time. Fortunately, there are people like Margaret, Bill, Lefty, Linda, and yourself who can see both the forest and the trees.
Mark Cartwright sums it up best. “Jesus wept.” Indeed. Indeed.
Posted by Sandra on May 3, 2005 at 1:46 PM our church feeds the poor and homeless one day a week. i am the co-chair. i am poor. i receive ss, am 72, was told by my dad years ago that there was no need for people to be hungry in this country, if we had money for guns we had money for butter(haven’t eaten butter in a long time). if you have money or food stamps you can eat just not well. pasta covers almost every meal we serve. its cheap and filling and fattening. those are brain deadening foods beef steak fish green veggies are what makes people smart. we give away day old bread and we never have enough. mostly have old people and homeless men . liquor was a big problem in their lives some are now ok but their livelihood has been destroyed. WE are cutting off our noses thanks for the forum and god bless the LIBERALS
Posted by ardis hunt on May 3, 2005 at 3:46 PM No safety nets, more desperation. Less nutritional food, less intelligence in kids. Less intelligent kids who are more desperate, more crime. More crime, more incarcerations (if you can find room in the penitentiary to put anyone). More incarcerations, more hardened, recidivist criminals.
And so on…
OK yes, simplistic. About as simplistic as the notion that only lazy, dumb people fall upon economic hard times, which is so often the ethic behind gutting food stamp programs.
As much as I’d never want America to be legally Christianized, I think in this instance, a dose of Christian compassion among the legislators (who live like nobility and get more freebie government perks than I care to list) would be a welcome notion.
Oh wait, what was I thinking, all those kids and old folks and unemployed can queue up at the local church food giveaway. That’ll compensate…
Sure it will.
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 1:33 AM “Oh wait, what was I thinking, all those kids and old folks and unemployed can queue up at the local church food giveaway.”
Will they have to testify to their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal savior in exchange for food?
Posted by Lefty on May 4, 2005 at 5:15 AM I don’t know Lefty, i don’t know. But if i were hungry, i don’t think i would worry that having to hear a sermon might hurt me in any way. . . Hell, it just might even help.
Posted by Marty on May 4, 2005 at 7:20 AM Kuya - even if it were completely absolutely true that only lazy dumb people needed our help, we should still help them (though we might choose to help the merely lazy somewhat differently than the willing but incapable). We don’t blink an eye at helping the mentally retarded; the fact that many poor people are intellectually inferior only bolsters their need for assistance from the more able.
Posted by Pat on May 4, 2005 at 7:25 AM Pat
Kuya was being sarcastic, attempting to make the point that it is a false impression, perpetrated and maintained by those opposed to social programs like welfare and food stamps, that those who are poor are also ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’. I agree with your statement about the mentally challenged, but it really just serves to support Kuya.Now, Marty
A sermon may help, it may not. Having to absorb someone else’s beliefs in order to eat should not be the goal of any charity, and our government should not put people or institutions in a position where moral guidance is a prerequisite for eating food.
Imagine the outcry if these cuts result in Synagogues, Buddhist Temples, the gay community and other ‘non-Christian’ groups feeding the poor. Hear the screams if these groups required people to listen to their message before they could be fed.Last, just to put the ‘poor are stupid’ arguement to bed: I was raised in a trailer park and now serve as a professor at one of the most prominent colleges in Boston. Never in my life has a lack of money meant a lack of opportunity or access; doors open for those who want to walk through them.
Posted by mn on May 4, 2005 at 12:04 PM No one infantilizes adults more than the conservatives and the extreme right.
The runaway bride is misguided and should not be prosecuted (per Mark Levin). Women should not be allowed to abort, because they need to be protected from themselves.
Please, don’t twist my words, Pat. That ruse by the right is getting old and tiresome.
My point is why is the conservative view always “tax cuts solve everything”.
What have they solved. We did it in the 80’s during Reagan and are doing it now with Bush. What have we got. Exploding deficits. We cut programs. What have we got? More poor than ever before, lousy education syste (which the President is too cheap to fund...why? we don’t have the money? why? geeeee...tax cuts to the rich).
Don’t get me started, ok. EVERY policy put forward by this Administration has created one trainwreck after another. He’s turned the country into a renegade nation and on the way to turning it into a third rate, basket case third world nation.
We are the ONLY industrialized nation with no national healthcare. What’s his solution? Gut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
When all the Randians and other so called “libertarians” come in here to disparage social programs and criticise ANYONE that disagrees with this President, they offer NO solutions. They blame problems on INDIVIDUALS. Funny, but most of them are quite comfortable. Its quite easy to criticise others for being poor, when you have a loaf of bread stuffed under each arm. Instead of thanking god for their good fortune and making at least a gesture to share at least a PIECE of the loaf of bread stuffed under each arm, they criticise and raise the equivalent of a middle finger to those less fortunate.
This President is a man of privilege. He NEVER worked hard a day in his life. His failures have been glossed over by family connections. He has no concept of how real people live, and quite frankly neither does his “base”.
It is said that a country is a reflection of its leadership.
Do you really like what you see?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on May 4, 2005 at 12:27 PM Hey, i am in total agreement about helping the needy. I don’t understand Liberal AND Proud comment above - we are apparently on the same side of this issue.
My only point is that we should *especially* help the least able - including the stupid and lazy. And while it seems obvious to me that the poor are (statisically) populated by the intellectually inferior, this only makes me believe that they need even more help. (Should we only help those who can score 90 or above on an IQ test? While that may save a great deal of money, it seems like a horrible idea. In fact, if we were to “means test” help, we should limit it to those who score 120 or 130 or above, who could plausibly fend for themselves.)
Anyone in a city of any size must know from personal experience that the poor also have more than their share of mentally defectives (i am thinking of the nuts muttering and occasionally shouting in the streets). They also need our help. (A conumdrum i have is whether they should be allowed to wander around homeless or whether society should scoop them up and help them against their will?)
So it seems we should all be able to agree that we should help those in need. Whether we know or care about details of their demograpics in only marginally of importance. This is primarily so we can help them even more (steer them to appropriate skills training, put them in appropriate facilities, etc).
Posted by Pat on May 4, 2005 at 12:55 PM Hi Kuya,
You said:
“I think in this instance, a dose of Christian compassion...”What is wrong with just plain “compassion?” Are you suggesting that “Christian” compassion is better than compassion shown by non believers? You imply that non believers don’t have, or are not able to show, compassion.
If a person does not have compassion for others it is not because he lacks Christianity. It is because he has an emotional problem that is unresolved.
A dose of Christianity does not help to solve the problem, a dose of compassion by anyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or non believer, does.
Posted by Merlin on May 4, 2005 at 6:06 PM The poor are not lazy, stupid, or in need of our pity. Min. wage jobs pay below the poverty level; many are only part-time. I, for one, can only find fierce admiration for the powerful physical and mental resilience, persistence and dogged determination of the millions of Americans who struggle daily for their existence at the margins of society.
Practically invisible, they plant, cultivate, harvest, pack, process, ship, store, cook and serve your food, and then clean the mess you leave. They see that the buildings you work in are clean and functioning. They see that there are fresh and clean linens in your hotel rooms. They keep your gardens, lawns, parks and golf courses trimmed and neat. They load the trucks and stock the shelves with the cornucopia of consumer goods to which our society is addicted. If the poor weren’t willing to work, the economy would fall like a house of cards.
If the bankers and the businessmen who hold our society by the political and economic short hairs really gave a good goddam, poverty could practically disappear.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 4, 2005 at 6:11 PM Hi luminous beauty,
Thanks so much for this beautiful “Cliff Notes” version of the understanding necessary to have compassion. Your beauty shows truly shows here in this post! You have brought a tear of happiness to my eye.
Posted by Merlin on May 4, 2005 at 7:47 PM luminous beauty, you have summed it up well. For those who think the poor are somehow mentally defective, may I remind you that in the 19th century, the middle class also believed this of the teeming millions that lived and worked to keep the middle class in the luxury to which they believed they were entitled. I am fed up with the patronising BS that passes for analysis and understanding on the part of those who simply repeat what the powerful of all ages and times are so fond of chanting-"it’s all their own fault-and I am fortunate because I am so damned good/smart/deserving!” Power, economic, social and political is garnered, traded and hoarded by those who have their hands on the levers, and the devil takes the hindmost. Grow up!
Posted by Jane Doe on May 5, 2005 at 12:58 AM This is going to be difficult to do without sounding heartless, but I’ll give it a try.
Whatever we decide to pay for we are going to get more of it.
I own several rental houses in depressed areas that are Section 8 which is a government subsidy. One of my tenants has been with me for 4 years and is a charming single mom with a young son. I visit her every month to collect the $40 she pays of the $700 rent, so I’ve gotten to know her very well. A couple of months ago she asked if I would buy a 3 bedroom house she could live in because she was going to have another baby and Section 8 won’t let her stay in a 2 bedroom house if she had a daughter. Girls and boys can’t occupy the same bedroom.
When I asked her how long she had been pregnant she replied she wasn’t yet but was going to get pregnant when I could find her a house. Needless to say I had to understand this reasoning. She has calculated that it was hard getting buy with just 1 child. With the various subsidies she receives she can cover her food and most of her living expenses but constantly had either the phone or cable TV disconnected. With a second child the aid for dependent children she would receive would allow her some breathing room.
Angie follows all the rules of Section 8. She doesn’t let her boyfriend stay overnight and will not get married. She takes good care of the property and I’ll find her another house because I want to keep her as a tenant.
Angie aside, this program is whacked. She has no incentive to get a job and she gets a pay increase by having children and remaining a single mom. I could write a book on what I’ve learned from Angie about life in the Hood. A program created by the American people out of compassion for our lesser citizens has created generations of dependency and destroyed the family unit. Angie doesn’t want a job, I’ve tried. I don’t want Angie’s life but she is quite content with it and regrettably I predict her children will too when they become adults.
We can’t discuss the problem and find a solution. If I were a public figure and defined this as a problem the fur would fly. I’d be branded a heartless bigot, racist and drummed out of office in about 1 day. This problem is bigger than any one solution. If we throw more money at it, it will continue to grow. If we cut it people will suffer. I don’t know the answers but not being able to discuss it openly and honestly will never resolve it.
Posted by Bill Martin on May 5, 2005 at 7:09 AM Hi whats the truth?,
Sound like a Troll? I don’t get it. Please explain.
Posted by Merlin on May 5, 2005 at 11:55 AM Merlin,it’s your last post to L.B.Why do you always resort to attacking the person instead of the arguement?You’re always trying to get the last word in,and proving(to yourself at least)how superior you are to everyone else,IMO.Get over yourself already.And please shut up and listen if you don’t have anything constructive to say.IMO.
Posted by whats the truth on May 5, 2005 at 12:16 PM Bill,why can’t Angie do without cable TV?Maybe we should require anybody receiving aid to make some kind of return for what they receive,you know,like a job.There’s plenty that needs to be done.Day care,time at a homeless shelter,etc.Just a suggestion.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 12:27 PM Hi whats the truth,
Thanks for your explanation. I’m sorry if you misunderstood my post to LB. I am absolutely sincere in that compliment. The words expressed represent how I feel and I was moved enough to say so. And I did choke up on what I saw as the beauty of the understanding. I wish that I was able to express my feelings as concisely as LB has done in this post.That you are still angry at me from our previous posts is a shame. If you were not, you may not have read my comments this way.
One other thought. Even if you are correct in believing I am as you see me, that does not make me a troll. I suggest you check out the definition.
Posted by Merlin on May 5, 2005 at 12:38 PM Merlin,sorry if I misunderstood you,it just sounded sarcastic to me,esspecially the ‘cliff notes’ comment.My bad.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 1:58 PM I had to re-read the article to confirm whether or not the “Rep. Goodlatte” referenced in the last paragraph was a real name or just a made-up one. It seems like the perfect moniker for a Beltway elitist who thinks he knows what’s best for the country.
Oh, wait, it’s the Democrats who are the latte’-sipping elitists who are so out of touch with the common man. My bad.
Posted by Pete on May 5, 2005 at 3:13 PM And the republicans are in touch with the common man?They’re all beltway elitists who are out of touch with the common man.Why can’t anyone understand that? Oops,"my bad”,Pete.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 3:26 PM Hi Bill,
Everyone looks to take advantage of every loophole available when paying taxes, paying a traffic ticket, appearing for jury duty or whatever. No one criticizes a person for doing this. Avoidance is permissible. Evasion is not. That is against the law.
If Angie is doing everything according to the laws, rules and regulations as you indicate, I have no problem with her actions from a legal point of view. She is simply doing what she believes is in her best interest, just like the corporations that avoid paying taxes. Whether she is really benefitting herself and her children morally and ethically is definitely debatable. Personally, I would not choose her path or her ethical and moral code. Never the less, she is well within the law.
Too use her case to show the failure of the system and justify ending it, is to not be able to separate the baby from the bath water. The system is not flawed (based as it is on compassion), rather some of the implementation is flawed and that should be changed. Every system should be considered ‘a work in progress” and not something set in stone. The system itself should be changed only when it is proven to be founded on the “wrong” philosophy, (i.e. greed, power, selfishness etc.)
Posted by Merlin on May 5, 2005 at 4:31 PM I have skimmed over the responses to the article and am completely digusted with what i have read. The poor ARE NOT stupid and lazy. Growing up working class in one of the richest towns in America, I know first hand that the wealthy come that way because of privileged upbringing. My father and mother worked their asses off so my sister and I could have the best education possible. My father is a genious, and he was a janitor, plumber, electrician, and building renter, he had no help and was on call 24 hours a day; he worked in such a manner until the age of 65. My mother was a clerk at several stores and worked while disabled from a car accident. They are not children, they are not lazy, and they are extremely smart people.
The rich allow the poor to remain in the state that they are in. Look at our public schools, the schools in the city of chicago and illinois in itself are in a crisis. Children are being left behind because the state cannot afford to fund them. These children go to school everyday looking for an education but they are not given it because this country needs a working class. Without the uneducated there would be no busdrivers or janitors. When you call the poor childlike, do you ever bother speaking to them? The homeless who have no food stamps and rely on soup kitchens are mainly mentally disabled. It is not there fault for being born into this world at a disadavantage. I was in Boston for the convention and spoke with these “children” and can tell you they are not lazy, they are unsure of the little help they can receive. One man was so confused of all the visitors in the city he thought we were all living on the streets, a childlike thought, but it was not his fault. There was also a man who couldnt even speak, he was visibly autistic and knew no words, but to look at me with sadness and shame in his eyes, that was all i needed to see, and I DID NOT look down on him. Anybody who feels like talking down to the working class or calling them uneducated, take a good look at yourself and your accomplishments, I can guarantee that you are NO better of a person as the man who is picking up your garbage everday. Do you have the heart to belittle yourself as to throwing other peoples garbage away to feed yourself and your family? We are more fortunate because of what we were born into.
Posted by Andriana on May 5, 2005 at 7:20 PM I have been reading all these posts and I’m disgusted with allot of it. If the welfare program had been run right in the first place, we wouldn’t have such a glut of welfare cases now. They should have started getting education for people 30 years ago or 40 so they would be able to make a living and we wouldn’t have this vicious cycle of one welfare family raising another.
Another question that was raised was, do people have to listen to a sermon or join a church to get help at a church pantry. Well I’ve worked in them and the answer is no. God is not even mentioned to these people. No one is treated any different then the next.
My third question to you is, what do you think will happen when there is no more help for the poor. What usually happens when people are denied the most fundamental need in their lives such as food to fill their bellies. They are going to get it by any means necessary. Can you imagine the robberies, the maming and the killing that will result from this. Evidently Congress and the President do not or maybe they think nothing can touch them.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on May 7, 2005 at 11:18 PM I am sick and tired of reading about the Bush “tax cuts”. These are NOT tax cuts! It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a “tax cut” when you are spending more than you are taking in. This is simple logic. Like any other shell game these so called tax cuts are tax shifts. George Bush and the republican controlled congress are merely shifting taxes from this generation to the next. So, not only are the truely needy in our society being forced to go hungry to pay for this selfish conservative dreamworld, but our kids as well.
Posted by Chris on May 10, 2005 at 6:39 AM Hello Merlin and Pat,
Actually, I’ll honor compassion in virtually any guise, Christian, atheist, communist, doesn’t much matter to me, I see little enough of it out there that any addition would be counted an improvement. And although I think the poverty = crime argument has some big holes (check out some of the super-rich crooks among mafiosi and crony-capitalists), it’s still just a matter of simple concern for another’s well-being if society offers a safety net to those down-and-out. No need to make them rich, but surely no need to make them go hungry either. We don’t exalt ourselves by being stingy as a society.As for broke = lazy or dumb, I’ll just mention that I’ve been broke as hell more than a few times, saw my ma deal with being broke a number of times, and not a one of us is or was lazy or dumb, of course it was sarcasm in my post above. In fact, there would have been times in my youth when a minor assist from the community would have been welcome, but unfortunately we didn’t qualify for aid because the $200 my da gave in child support disqualified us. Yup, that $200 sure was gravy, I can still feel the sand of the Riviera between my toes…
Sarcasm as well, comrades. What’s the harm in preventing misery that’s preventable? If some scam artist gets too crafty and freaks the system to suck more than his legit share, cut him off. No need to do so with families who need a temporary assist.
Posted by Kuya on May 10, 2005 at 8:38 AM Hi Kuya,
Just looked at your comment and thought I saw a sort of tacit acceptance of a myth perpetuated by conservatives. That is, the only reason why society is supposed to help out its less fortunate members is because it is morally right to do so. This leads to the image of a more or less dysfunctional underclass depending on the largesse of the hard working, responsible members of society - which is crap. The truth is most of the people who are disadvantaged in America got that way because they were born to that condition and were given no opportunity to get out. To my mind, society, and our government, is not supposed to help out the less fortunate for any other reason than that it OWES them.Chris
Posted by Chris on May 10, 2005 at 1:39 PM “To my mind, society, and our government, is not supposed to help out the less fortunate for any other reason than that it OWES them.”
This “entitlement” mind set is anathama to me. The idea that the world (government) owes you a good life is harmful to those who embrace it. In fact, as a parent, one of the primarly lessons i teach my children is that they are responsible for themselves.
That said, i fully support the idea that people (via government, churches, or individuals) should help the less fortunate. The less foutunate should be extremely grateful for such assistance (and hopefully expect to return the favor one day). But this is vastly different from believing that people should be *required* to help them and that the less fortuante should merely expect that help.
Finally, in the US at least, everyone has opportunity. Unfortunately, all too many squander this opportunity.
Posted by Maggie on May 11, 2005 at 9:08 AM ...squandering opportunities
In my home town, like hundreds of others across the midwest, there is a definate, well defined black neighborhood. It has been that way ever since I can remember. The houses, streets, schools and cars there are in terrible shape compared to the rest of the town. To believe that the blacks themselves created this situation you have to believe two things. First, that blacks are just not as hard working or industrious as the whites who generally live in better homes. Second, that blacks just like to live in crappy homes. But if you don’t accept these things, which I don’t, you have to look for other reasons why these neighborhoods exist. The truth is that these neighborhoods are the result of many years of discrimmination, usually with the direct complicity of local government. Now if you are born into one of the white neighborhoods, you will have more money, live in a better house and go to a nicer school. If you are born into the black neighborhood, you WILL NOT have the same quality of life or as great an opportunity to better yourself. And if all of this is true, and the whole situation required acts of discrimmination which government failed to prevent or even condoned, why would it not be government’s (and society’s) responsibility to correct it? I chose the example of racial discrimmination to make this point only because it is the most obvious. Prior and ongoing acts of gender, religious, economic and ethnic discrimmination have disadvantaged many other groups.
Posted by Chris on May 11, 2005 at 10:08 AM Maggie;
I totally agree that we need to teach our children personal responsibility. As adults, however, don’t we have to take some responsibility for the society we live in?
It would be really wonderful if the myth of equal opportunity in the US was less of a myth and more of a reality. When a poor person fails he’s ‘sqaundering’ his opportunity. When a wealthy person fails, he’s an enterprising ‘risk-taker’. Can you not see the burden of blame and shame conventional judgements place on the former and the ego stroking extended to the latter?
Dire misfortune is but one step away from everyone. Even you and me. As Chris says, its even more intimate in some easily defined neighborhoods. Life does not grant any such thing as certain security. That depends a great deal on the bonds of social solidarity.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2005 at 11:07 AM The submersed racism implicit within many of the posts on this board is astonishing. For those of a mind that notions of condescension, social-Darwinism, and zero understanding of socio-economic conditioning are the sole province of right-wing cranks such as the White Knights of The Golden Libertarian Ayrian Confusion, think again.
It is alive and well and flourishing within our midst.
An insidious aspect of cultures immersed in bigotry is bigots seldom don’t know they are.
---Hempshackle
Posted by B Q Hempshackle on May 12, 2005 at 7:10 AM Maximillian Al-Dakari is right, on this and a couple of other blogs.
Marxists would agree with the notions of “the death of capitalism”. Still, they never seem to link it to ecology, much. I suppose there’s just one planet we have to rely on - and once all the “virgin” countries have been invaded by the West, and once many of the resources are depleted - what then?
Socialism, I very much hope! With plenty of careful environmental husbandry. (NB, NOT just using “the environment” as an excuse to tax poor, ordinary people on what they use, or saying “you can’t have any!” to the developing countries.)
Posted by Liz on Jun 14, 2005 at 12:03 AM Luminous Beauty - what’s this about cliff notes?
Notes my eye! Here you speak truth: “If the poor were unwilling to work, the economy would fall like a house of cards.”
True. Barbara Ehrenreich, a journalist researching the lives of the poor, says as much… as far as she dares.
So - poor - WHY don’t you refuse to work at all these ill-paid, “invisible” jobs?? Stage a General Strike - an economic shutdown!
Watch how you put Bush right off his stride! He’ll have to divert some of his stormtroopers from Iraq to see to YOU, in that case! But, seeing as he is increasingly recruiting from among the poor and the ethnic - WILL they be as prepared, as the National Guard were in the Sixties civil rights riots - to attack what are in fact their brethren??
I’d LIKE to see it! I think you could bring it down as easily as the Communist Party splinter counter-coup in Russia in 1991 was brought down; the soldiery weren’t having any of it. Problem was, that led to Yeltsin and then Putin. I think America could do better than a Yeltsin though.
General Strike. It would work, in America. It would SO scare the smug conservatives!
Posted by Liz on Jun 14, 2005 at 12:26 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Mark Winne
- Meat-Industrial Complex
How factory farms undercut public health - Battling Big Cola
Parents and health advocates fight to make sure Pepsi is not the choice of a new generation - The Cruelest Cuts
As Congress haggles over food stamp cuts, soup kitchens fear longer lines - Slow Food for a Dying Planet
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
