I was making a comment on a subset of people from which you have generalized an attack. I'm sorry if Ive offended you. Just try to be more open minded when you read my response and those interspersed in your post.
I'm not condemning the people who truly need help, and never meant to imply that everyone simply took the government and private largess and spent it on what to most people would be considered luxuries and entertainment, (or maybe on sin if you're so inclined). However a a fairly large minority did. Just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, which is in large measure what was done However it looks like something is being done, and makes certain people feel good so that's what happens. Especially if they don't have to directly deal with the results. I was making a rye comment on the unintended consequences 1.) the group of people who can't control their urges gets to satisfy them, 2.) a certain group of people who have no interest in legal work become better armed to better peruse their true vocations, 3.) a certain class of relatively attractive women make more money to help maintain their lifestyle. It went without saying, or so I thought, that a large number of people who found themselves in temporarily bad positions were able to feed and cloth themselves and their children. I don't think I was passing judgment on anything except the programs. For some the problem is temporary and gets solved, for some their problems never get solved. Some just leach off the good intentions until the tit is dry and go on to other places. graywolf wrote: >Haven't dealt much with assistance programs have you, Peter? You have >the stereotype down pat, but the reality escapes you. You do not replace >the infrastructure of a major city all that quickly. Also while it may >have been possible for people who owned their homes and had insurance to >replace them by now, people who lived in apartments and rooms are most >likely still pretty much out of luck. Unfortunately most folks deal with >hopelessness by drinking, getting religion, or both. That hasn't changed >much in the past million years or so. > > I won't even comment on the city, It's debatable weather not New Orleans should be rebuilt at all. The fact that the local, city and state governments are corrupt and inept only makes it worse. Yes some people do cope with hopelessness by drinking, however just giving them money doesn't help them. Besides most of those who spent their money that way probably won't be returning to New Orleans soon. They'll wait to see how things play out. The majority of the poor both working and otherwise who were displaced, who used the money as it was intended, probably won't return either, they'll have built lives for themselves elsewhere, by the time the city is rebuilt, even if they loved the place. >Also our society seems to think the way to deal with people who are not >quite self-sufficient is to put them on the street to sink or swim. Give >them some food-stamps, and a run down demoralizing dangerous place to >live, then blame them because they do not become prosperous happy people. > > And where did you get the idea that I didn't know or understand this? Or for that matter might approved of it. I deal with people who work with shelters and their inhabitants. (I'd say they were friends of mine but that's such a cliché). I'm well aware of their situation. My beef is that nothing is done to separate those who are capable of being happy productive people, from those who aren't and treat them according to their needs. >An interesting thing is that my therapist says that it is now known that >addictive people have an gene that causes the source of their addiction >make them feel about like normal people do about sex; kind of a hard >thing for someone with less than normal willpower to deal with. I give >thanks, often, that I do not have that gene. > > Your therapist is right based on my reading. However I've also got friends and relatives, a former client even, who have that gene. I've seen them fall off the wagon, to both my personal and financial distress, there isn't a lot I could do. Your point? >Also, the assistance system, at least in the US, is set up to victimize >the assisted. You are caught in catch 22. Social Security Disability at >least has a way that one can gradually get off of it. All the locally >administered assistance programs are all or nothing affairs. For >instance if I was able to go back to work, I would immediately lose my >rent, and medical assistance. That means I would have to make more than >my SS + assistance to break even. And that does not include the monster >$31/mo in food stamps I would lose <grin>. > > See my comment to your first paragraph. >Also it really nifty how they help with cost of living increases. Social >Security gives you a raise from $627 to $652/mo, while the cost of fuel, >food, power have almost doubled. Oh well! But wait, then they cut your >food stamps by $20, and your rent assistance by $8, giving you a net COL >increase of ($3). It is enough in itself to drive someone to drink. It >is so absurd it is actually humorous. > > Well, a good consumer will substitute an expensive good for a less expensive one, so the feds changed the method of computing inflation to take that into account. If you can't make the substitution you're tough out of luck. The change was made oh, about 20 years ago, entirely to keep COLAs under control, rather than to modify the programs that used the rate of inflation to set COLAs, change the way inflation is measured. This makes perfect sense. There were just too many constituencies who could be offended and or alienated if these programs were modified to to be work intelligently, that assumes intelligent and caring bureaucrats and we shouldn't go there.. If you look at the finances of most non emergency programs you quickly see they are run for the benefit of government employees not their clients, or the taxpayer. Why do you think I don't understand and this and that, I'm not offend by it either. >I often tell folks that the difference between being broke and being >poor is that broke is temporary. But the other day I realized that they >are not the same thing at all because when I was working I was often >broke. Now that I am poor I am almost never broke, I can not afford to >be because there is not enough slack in my budget to make up for any >overspending. > > I think that's the point. Being poor is permanent, because it's a state of mind. but you're in a worse position. You're being kept poor. >I used to feel pretty much the same way you seem to, but now I have a >very different perspective. Even my attitude towards those who cheat the >system has changed, because the people running it like to "just say, no" >to applicants. Except for food-stamps all the assistance I have receive >I found out about from someone who was cheating and thus knew all the >ropes, nothing has been volunteered by the people who are supposed to >help. In fact, once you find out you are eligible for some program, then >you have to fight tooth and nail to get it, those who won't, or can not, >do that just end up on the street bumming money for another bottle of >wine, or quart of beer. > > > That's just another flaw in the system. However I already knew that, my friends who work in the shelter can point out the cheaters and the honest, those who could succeed given a chance, those who for various reasons could never succeed. They're not allowed to do anything about any of them, once you're in, everyone is treated exactly the same. > >BTW, this comment has nothing to do with the PESO > > > -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
