For all the participants in this thread - what’s your view of personal responsibility? Where does it begin and end?
That brushstroke is so wide I can’t even see its edges. Your characterization might even be correct, but it’s certainly not borne out in this thread. The liberals and progressives here seem to be looking at causes of problems, and discussing explanations.
ISTM that understanding how and why things happen is essential to discovering actually workable solutions.
.
If you’re not feeding your children so that you can spend your money on hookers and blow (or starbucks coffee), then yeah, maybe they are better off with someone else.
I don’t know a lot about the stolen generations in Australia and Canada. Did we remove children from the homes of parents that spent money on personal creature comforts over feeding their children? Is that what Aboriginal Australians and First Nation Canadians were doing before their kids were taken from them?
Losing your kids to child welfare is not irreversible. Shape up and you get your kid back, perhaps as soon as a few weeks from now. But if that isn’t enough of a wake up call and you are on welfare and decide that you would still rather have your Starbucks frappucino rather than pay for groceries and rent, then I would suggest your children are better off without you.
Then we need a better system. Perhaps its time to take a look at going back to the orphanage system where professional child care providers look after the children rather than random foster parents who might just be looking for a little extra income.
We removed kids from Aboriginal and First Nations families because we were sure and certain that we could provide a “better” environment, with more instruction in the “proper values” and “necessary skills”; turns out we were wrong, and we pretty much destroyed a couple of generations because we were so certain that the kids would be better off with someone else.
Don’t know much about the orphanage system, do you? There were (and still are) some good facilities, but orphanages have long tended to be nasty and brutish places. Canada’s largest sex abuse scandal, e.g., was probably the Mount Cashel Orphanage; Australia has their own scandals at places like Rockhampton. Ireland, Portugal, the U.S., Russia, Romania, Iran–the list of countries with orphanage scandals is lengthy.
“Professional child care providers” take care of the kids as a job; just like those random foster parents, they may be in it only for the income. One of the most notable deficits is that orphanage kids are frequently deprived of love, attention, affection, and a sense of belonging. The social and emotional aspects have an incredible amount to do with positive outcomes, and those are precisely the aspects most difficult to replicate with a changing (and quite frequently underpaid) staff.
That point bears repeating: the U.S. foster care system is in deep trouble precisely because there’s no political will to pour huge amounts of money into caring for somebody else’s kids. That will isn’t suddenly going to emerge if we gather the kids out of foster care and put them back in big institutions; they’ll all be in one place, out of sight and out of mind, cared for by the lowest bidder. What do you think the outcomes are likely to be?
Fair enough. I suspect we will have a similar discussion when it comes to how much shelter should be provided to a specific family group in the living wage.
Everyone should be for providing people with free birth control, or at least subsidized or something. But, as another poster said, even if birth control were free for everybody, apparently poor girls have no choice but to have unprotected sex with jobless loser assholes.
There is a giant gap between unpleasant consequences like forgoing a luxury and being homeless or hungry.
As for the rest of your post, the reality is that most poor people aren’t poor because they are buying Mercedes. That’s the gap between you (and others) and me (and others). Our economy, and essentially everyone in history, has poor people. You can always point at choices an individual made as the reason they are poor. And indeed, it’s not random chance. But we all can’t be skilled workers making a good living. Someone has to dig the ditches and clean up shit, and that person is going to be poor.
No one said that.
Which kind of makes my point all the more important- the thread, at the point when I replied, was about why poor people should or shouldn’t be able to buy luxuries and/or not save for the future.
It’s really not a prudent move to buy luxury items, or have Netflix or similar things, if you’re in peril of being homeless or hungry if you fall short on payments or have a minor financial disruption. In that situation, you really should be saving every dime you have, so that if some calamity does befall you, you have a bit of breathing room, whether or not that’s comfortable or whatever.
If you have that cushion built up to whatever you feel is a reasonable amount, and you can afford Netflix, then by all means, do it. But if you have 0 money saved up, and you literally have no wiggle room in your finances such that a $150 unexpected doctor bill would cause you to go hungry, then spending $8 a month on Netflix is terribly irresponsible. You could easily build up a $200 fund in about 6 months at $8 a month.
But according to some, the poor need luxuries more than they ought to save their money in that situation. That’s baffling to me that someone would say that.
My point with the Mercedes was in direct response to the story about the woman who had the Mercedes that her husband bought when times were good, and yet went to pick up food stamps in it. Not selling it is irresponsible if you’re in dire enough straits to need food stamps. The issue wasn’t that she shouldn’t get the food stamps, but rather that she should sell the damn car.
And I know there are always going to be poor people. I think that there should be a certain safety net in place, but it shouldn’t be engineered in such a way to effectively reward poor decision making.
Need? Ought? Not seeing where anyone’s said that either.
In your scenario, sure–not the best choice. Not a good choice. But an understandable one.
You might want to check your math.
Man does not live by bread alone.
Everybody needs some kind of outlet–the people who have only stress with no relief are the ones who end up with more of those unexpected medical bills, further worsening their financial situation. It doesn’t have to be a Netflix subscription, but there needs to be SOME way of relaxing, decompressing, relieving an otherwise stressful and regimented existence. If $8/mo. will do it, that’s pretty cheap.
Why? If she’s in a position to need reliable transportation, there is a certain comfort in having a paid-off car that you know the history on, that you know what work has been done and what needs doing, etc. Buying a junker that you have to keep pouring money into, or that causes you to miss interviews and doctors appointments, is false economy. The time, money, and stress spent on trying to find a good reliable used car will eat up precious resources, and if a $150 medical bill kills the budget, a $150 repair bill you didn’t see coming isn’t any better. (That repair bill, of course, can happen on any vehicle, but it’s perhaps a bit more likely on something on which you have no idea of the previous maintenance or repair history, and on which the seller is likely trying to puff up.) A distress sale on the Mercedes isn’t going to bring in enough cash to bring them out of poverty for any great amount of time, and depending on what they get to replace it, they may end up worse off.
I admit that on the Left, you can get a denial of personal agency. But I also think on the Right you can get a denial of systemic factors that can prevent people from succeeding. The best way is to forge some sort of middle path. Recognize that we’re not a pure meritocracy, but still encourage people to try their utmost to succeed.
My home state will be raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If either Hillary or Bernie get elected, there’s a good chance that college will be more affordable as well. When you make the path to upward mobility less steep of a climb, more people are going to climb it. I have hope for my future. More hope than I’ve ever had before.
Provide the basics without beating people over the head with moral judgements.
And by basics, I don’t just mean providing a safety net, but also education and providing opportunities for people to escape the cycle of poverty. A person who was raised in poverty seriously can’t be blamed for being poor themselves when all they learn is dysfunctional coping mechanisms and when they essential inherit the consequences of their parents’ bad choices.
I don’t think levying fines and penalties against the poor actually does anything but ensure that they will always be poor.
Keeping in mind that I am speaking only for my state, and that other states have rules that may be more or less onerous, when I applied for food stamps I was required to provide proof of ownership of all vehicles in the household which were then valued by the Blue Book numbers. If one or more vehicles are valued over a certain amount you will simply not be awarded food stamps, you will have to sell it and spend down that money before qualifying. However, that number is probably higher than you expect for the reasons someone else gave: having reliable transportation is important. If you have a lot of vehicles you might also be required to sell some. The state might also allow a tradesman to keep a vehicle higher in value that the normal cut-off if it’s a situation where that vehicle provides income of some sort because, after all, the eventual goal is to have people make more money.
(The allowed value of a vehicle can range from $4,500 - which means** bump’s** proposed $5k Ford Focus would disqualify someone from food stamps - to as much as $15,000 in Texas. This is what I mean by “varies by state”. In my state there’s a high allowance for the household’s first vehicle, but the second one has to be worth $4,500 or less. If you want to know more, here is a link)
So… at least in my state… if someone is using food stamps and driving a Mercedes then one of two things have occurred: either the value of the Mercedes is below the cut off (maybe it’s a really old one) or else fraud is occurring. If you suspect fraud by all means report it - I was audited while drawing unemployment, if someone is honest it’s annoying but not the end of the world.
Because if you live in Texas you’re allowed up to $15,000 for a vehicle and it’s a damn reliable one? Because if you live somewhere else a $5k Focus is still too much of an asset to let you qualify for a benefit?
Yes, you could. It’s one option. Probably a better option more often than not, maybe there’s a reason why it’s not the best for someone else. Maybe the person is disabled and the Mercedes has been modified to allow the person to drive it safely, but modifying another car might wipe out any profit gained by a sale. Or something.
You can’t use an EBT card for anything but food. Food is sort of a necessity by definition, isn’t it?
When an EBT benefit is given to a person it becomes their money, just as a social security benefit becomes the beneficiary’s money. Unless you want someone playing nanny-state on your grocery cart you should worry less about what other people are putting in theirs.
Who the hell has a “tax burden” that is truly that burdensome? Especially in the US where taxes are significantly lower than many other nations. Sure, I hear people complain about taxes all the time, but the truth is middle-class people can have priorities just as screwed up as the poor. If a middle class person is having trouble with their bills maybe they should drop the Starbucks and not expect a vacation in Cancun every year. Don’t buy luxuries you can’t afford is a rule that should apply to everybody! If you can’t afford everything you want you’ll have to make choices.
I think we shouldn’t let people starve or freeze to death on a sidewalk even if they are irresponsible.
You need to remember that the poor usually aren’t poor all by their lonesome. They usually had kids–multiple ones–living with them. However unfortunate this is, they are usually responsible for someone else’s quality of life.
I can totally understand how a parent might indulge in luxuries because those luxuries are essential for the entire household’s well-being. Sure, you could sell the kids’ X-Box and all their video games, along with the TV set. But now the kids are bored out of their fuckin’ minds. You could send them out to play, but they might catch a bullet or start playing with the “bad” kids who live across the street. At least you know they are safe when they are planted in front of the X-Box. And at least you know they are happy while they are playing it. You’ve got them eating pork and beans and white bread for dinner. They’ve got to take whore’s baths because you can’t afford a plumber to fix the bathtub. They can’t go anywhere fun with friends because you can’t afford to give them any spending money. They have to wear second-hand clothes and dollar store-sneakers. It would be one thing if all the other kids at school were in the same situation, but no. They go to school with kids who wearing $200 sneakers.
So why wouldn’t you feel like it would be wrong to take away their X-Box or Netflix? Getting rid of these things isn’t going to make you not-poor. It certainly isn’t going to make your children happier.
She’s fully entitled to food stamps, though. She’s presumably paid taxes like a good citizen, and thus she shouldn’t have to strip herself naked (figuratively) to get back a little of what she’s put in all those years. The whole point of the social safety net is to help people get through a bad patch. Expecting people to give up their life’s possessions before they can receive public assistance defeats the purpose of helping people. It’s akin to forcing people to starve themselves before you offer them a bowl of soup.
Nearly half of Americans (47%) don’t have $400 to pay for an emergency.
I thought this was the most interesting part:
Bolding mine.
Few people really understand personal finance. How many 18-year-olds are signing their names to $50K loan agreements right now without having any idea how they are going to pay them off? They can’t drink alcohol, but we expect them to intuitively understand compound interest?
The PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!! crowd would say that consequences are what teach people to avoid making bad choices. But I think it is often the case that harsh consequences compound the effect of bad choices.
So let’s assume the person could pay for the necessities (rent, food, utilities) themselves but choose not to by poor spending habits?
As for education, every state provides a free high-school education. And there are many need-based grants for college. And what other opportunities are you thinking about?
That’s not what I said. I said it was stupid on her part, not that she shouldn’t be getting the food stamps.
If you’re in dire enough straits to need food stamps, and you’re literally driving around in $10,000 or more of readily available cash, is that a good decision to make?
No, in most situations, you’d downgrade your car and use that cash for something else. It’s an asset, which means it’s another form of money, and a nice Mercedes is an awfully valuable one.
And here’s the thing- in your sob story, if you didn’t buy the damn Xbox in the first place, you could afford to fix the tub.
THAT is the exact kind of dumb-ass decision that I can’t fathom. Putting an Xbox ahead of a necessity like fixing the tub is dumb, and I don’t see a reason in the world why society should countenance that, or bail someone out for something like that.
I get that these people’s parents were incompetent, and that they’re likely incompetent themselves as a result, but continuing to support and enable that lifestyle seems like the very definition of throwing good money after bad.
So if I spend all of my paycheck on luxuries, who should pay my rent, groceries, clothes and utilities?
Is this a joke?
You don’t really know the situation. They might not have any equity in the Mercedes because they bought it with a loan, for example.