November 9, 2005

Clothe the Naked

Why is it so hard for people in the U.S. to feel compassion? To feel: "There but for some luck or grace go I"? I'm sure some will disagree with me, but the myth of the lone pioneer or cowboy staking out on his own, or the corporate mogul starting from nowhere and taking over the world Horatio Alger-style really doesn't take into account the fact that there are many people who simply can't take care of themselves adequately. Our society really ignores these people.

I now work, for the first time in many years, in what can politely be called an emerging or developing neighborhood. The homeless and hopeless abound. Walking to work this morning from the subway, I passed a man in rags doing his morning stretching on his front porch, which was of course, sidewalk grating. Walking to the park (and in the park) near my office, the mentally altered through drink, drugs, or insanity teem.

Our current social safety network really doesn't make provision for these people. Yes, they should get jobs. I certainly wouldn't hire them for anything I wanted done. They have trouble walking in a straight line and not stinking (and some have that truly scary metallic and odd chemical smell that I associate with the serious heavy duty psychotropic drugs that are the hallmarks of real and thorough departure from reality). The paperwork necessary to obtain SSI benefits (which are miniscule) is way too much for them to handle. Even if they obtain the benefits, the best they can do is an SRO (single room occupancy hotel) where they can be preyed on by criminals. Their chances of eating right are slim, especially since they are forbidden to cook in their rooms and basically dine one prepackaged food available at high prices from corner stores and trash can pickings (really -- I saw that in action yesterday). This is the capital of the current version of the Roman empire. We have large numbers of people sleeping on grates, eating food from dumpsters, and with severe mental and physical illnesses that go untreated within less than a mile of the Capitol and the White House. It's shameful.

These people can't care for themselves. We should take care of them. Me as an individual, you as individuals and members of various organizations, and our (the U.S.) government.

I know, I know. They might take the dollar I give them and buy a beer. It's called self-medicating. Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Let them buy the beer. If I were homeless, I'd want a beer, and if you were, so would you. It's not like anyone is going to hire these people or help them live more productive lives. Why is the fact that there are literally hundreds of people (five in one two block walk at 7:30 a.m.) in this situation not news? Oh, I remember why, for the most part, the government and the citizens of this country really don't give a flying fuck. To steal a great line (maybe misquoting): at long last, have we no shame?

19 comments:

Kira said...

It reminds me of my mother when I was a young one. We had ended up talking a while with an elderly lady in the mall who had claimed to have not eaten in days and also to have been left at the mall. My mom promptly took her over to a food place and bought her a huge plate of something. As we were walking off, my jaded pre-teen self said, "Gee mom, what if she was scamming you for that food?"

My mom's reply altered my life forever:

"Then the worst thing today I've done is feed another human being."

Wow. Yes, the world needs more like my mom. I, for my part, genuinely try to help when I can, and it's all because of her attitudes and how she raised me.

Prom said...

I'm a sucker for the guy on the corner with his shopping cart and dog - yeah, this guy who can't take care of himself takes great (or at least as best as he can) care of his dog. When he's out there when I buy lunch I get an extra lunch for him. He shares it with the dog.

There was a guy with a dog on that corner two years ago. I brought him a big waterproof poncho and a sleeping bag. At one point he just never came anymore. I worried about him for a long time. I hope someone with more ability than me to do something got him off the street but I don't know what happened to him. Winters are tough in NYC.

Foilwoman said...

Kira: Yes, feeding someone who might not necessarily need it is not a bad thing.

Prom: In New England, they used to raise money for one of the charities that provided a variety of shelters by showing a picture of someone who slept outside and then reading the current temperature. Somehow that got people's attention.

Benedict 16th said...

" Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor I'll piss on them"#

It struck me when in the US (over 10 years ago), you could walk into a "Banana Republic" shop and see someone carelessly buy a $2000 pair of Jeans and walk around the corner* and see someone sitting in their own shit. Hell that happens here as well, but nobody even seemed to notice. In SF all the vets were on street corners showing off their stumps** wrecked faces, scars etc... Money = Respect, well thats how it looked to me. Yes, I do wonder about the parallels of the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the current superpower - so who do you think are the barbarians at the gate?

# - Dirty Boulevard from "New York" by Lou Reed.
* actually you'de have to go outside the malls.
** Prostheses sitting by the side.

hofzinser said...

Your heart is in the right place AND private citizens choosing to directly fund another less fortunate private system is EXACTLY what should be happening.

The problem comes when we think that the government can "solve" these issues.

In all of our years as a country, there has never been a successful social program that helped, not hurt, the problem it was designed to address. Not one.

On the other hand, you look at non-governmental charity organizations which are funded by private citizens and corporations.... they are actually making a difference.

I commmend your charity. Don't dilute it by looking to the government to administer it.

Andy said...

All I have to say is that broke is a fact. Poor is a life style.

There are plenty of service out there for people. I work in the field. We mop up after what people do to themselves on a regular basis. Only to be blamed for because we didn't ____ (fill in the blank). Sorry, we can't be all things to all people. Sometimes people have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

The concern I have are the people who are getting benefits that are able to work. Take those people out of the equation and add there production to society, then we are looking at a lot more resources to help those that need it.

Foilwoman said...

My Eminence: As always, we are in agreement. And you are, of course, infallible.

Hof: You are conveniently ignoring the many successful social programs such as the GI Bill (not to mention the Marshall Plan), the home mortgage interest deduction designed to encourage home ownership at all levels of society, student loans (about to be slashed, btw), Head Start, and various other programs. You are simply making assertions without data. Also, are we (the U.S.) just incompetent at running social programs? The Danes (heck, the Spaniards and the Italians) are much better at taking care of their needy and their children (much lower infant mortality rates than we have, that's for damn sure). I guess the motto for the U.S. in terms of taking care of the weak and the needy is something like this: We're number 34! Or We're number 37! After most European countries, many Western Hemphisphere countries, including Cuba. A bit of a disgrace, but hey, since we avoid government involvement, let's just call it a success? It's an embarrassment to anyone who has a conscience.

And one question: since you don't believe in government programs, what do you do personally to help the needy?

Andy: there definitely are services out there, but they are piecemeal uncoordinated, and require a level of competence that many don't possess. For example, when homeless families turn up at shelters, the often are given a voucher for a hotel room if the shelter is full. And a bus voucher. If it is evening and there are bus transfers, it can take a mother with children several hours to get to the designated spot, which will be far from the children's school, nowhere near day care etc. Not conducive to helping her stay employed if she is employed or conducive toward stability for the children. Maybe the mother deserves to be punished for her plight, but the kids sure don't. And navigating the maze of benefits available . . . I've volunteered and helped people who have trouble tying their shoes get benefits. It was difficult for me, a very articulate, intelligent, and educated woman to complete all the forms properly and get all the information needed about what was needed, where to go, who to speak to, etc. If it's hard for me, it must be damn near impossible for someone who is marginal to begin with and then stressed out by homelessness aside from the intrinsic problems.

Obviously, JMNSHO, YMMV.

Benedict 16th said...

Actually when I Hofz and Andy's replies they are good examples of the philosophy of the trickle down effect... The problem with hand-me-downs is they don't engender self-respect. In Oz some indiginous people are so disposessed they spend their days rotting their brains sniffing petrol (which also relaxes the anal sphincter for predictable effect). And people keep complaining how many hand-outs these people get, if only they got out and got a job.... (or at least lock 'em up out of sight)

well if only they got out and got respect instead of being spat on....

hofzinser said...

Do me a favor, foilwoman. Check out this book for me:

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy (Paperback)
by Thomas Sowell

I think you will find it very interesting.

The GI Bill is a military construct and recruitment tool. We cannot measure the success/failure of it as a pure social program.

Consider this when looking at the programs you listed...

1) What crisis/problem was in place when the program began? What was the trend of this problem? How was this measured? Were things getting better or worse and how is that to be decided?

2) What specific problem was the program brought in to address?

3) After X number of years, what is the current status of the problem using the SAME method of measurement used to decide there was a problem. Did the trend, as originally measured, change? Did the "goals" of the program change as time passed?

I think you will find that the programs you listed (especially Head Start) may come into a different light using the reasonable requirements I list above.

As for the other countries... you cannot ignore the cost vs. the benefit of their programs. What is spent per program receiver? What was the benefit received and its value? You cannot ignore the costs regardless of how lofty the goal might be.

Per the home interest deduction... again not a social program as much as tax relief. You will never hear me argue against the government collecting less taxpayer dollars.

As for the "since you don't believe in government programs, what do you do personally to help the needy?". This has nothing to do with whether government entitlements are effective or not. Let us stay focused on the discussion at hand and not let personal distractions cloud things.

If I felt the need to justify my personal contributions to society it would not be in the context of this discussion.

Foilwoman said...

Hof: You started this discussion by congratulating my humanitarian impulses and dismissing my political views. I am simply asking: do you have humanitarian impulses, and if so, do you act on them. As for Sowell and the validity of his writings, that would take more time than I am willing to spend at the moment to discuss. But if ever I do feel the need to discuss his thoughts (which I mostly -- but not entirely -- disagree with, even with regard to the ones where he manages to get his facts right, which is not as often as I would like), I'll email you and let you know. Don't wait by the laptop if there are any spiritually fulfilling good works you need to be doing since you don't think the government should step up to the plate there.

Benedict 16th said...

Hofz,
Y'know when I used to play SimCity (early version early to mid-90's) It was funny, if you raised taxes about about 10% you would get riots in the streets! And the maximum you could have taxes was 20% anyway. What is wrong with higher taxes? I think as long as we all (as a society) pay the taxes fairly / equitably then 50% or even more of gross income should be taxed, and thats the price I pay to minimise* the risk of riots, homeless people or guarantee the government will secure the city levees or in an unpredicable disaster pull out all stops and get everybody out of that area.

I think we live in interesting times.
Benny



* I suspect you think similar things but your cost benefit ratio is way way out of scale with mine, unless of course you agree witht he freemen/anarchists/greed is good/out for themselves/psychopathically selfish etc...

hofzinser said...

16th,

Where does this faith in govt come from? Where does the idea come from that the govt knows how to better spend a dollar than the citizen who earned it? When has any form of institutional wealth redistribution ever worked before.... ever?

Do riots happen now (or levees break now) because the govt is UNDERfunded?

I loved SIMCity. One of my favorite things was taking their crippled city scenarios (like Flint, MI) and turning them into viable cities again. How did I do it? I dropped the tax rates on Industry and Commercial to 1% while keeping Residential rates below 5%. I ran a deficit for a few years funding services on muni bonds.

Guess what happened.... industry returned to my cities. Jobs were created. They attracted residents. The residents paid taxes. I paid off my muni bonds.

Here is one way to think about it.

Lets say you have $1,000 to spend on your kid. Who would better spending it? You or President Bush?

Never forget you can donate more taxes to the govt at any time. You can set your tax rate to 50% if you like.

Lastly... the words "taxes", "fairly" and "equitably" will never find themselves together in harmony. What is a fair tax? What is the fair way to tax? Good luck figuring that out.

As for Sowell.... even the many people that disagree with conclusions, few ever doubt his research or facts. His reasearch is pretty much universally reveared. Where does the doubt of his facts emerge from?

Do I have humanitarian impulses? It is a silly question but the answer is "yes". Do I act on them? Yes, far above and beyond most. Does this have anything to do with the fed's ability to solve social problems. No.

The distracting response to my last post in no way addressed how we should evaluate the list of past govt programs. Do you think it is a fair method for evaluating these programs?

Foilwoman said...

Benny & Hof: Sim City as a source for real social planning without regard to its presumptions and parameters? Eish.

Faith in government? No. But government beats the alternative. No government. Try Liberia for that. For good government, try Scandinavia, Minnesota, even Spain at times. Much of Western Europe lives quite well (and many fewer of their children die than ours do, which I think we would all agree is a standard to which we should wish to attain, if we are rational). Government requires vigilance and supervision, but government (and the correponding taxes) are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

Whether our (U.S.) society is civilized after watching our ability to respond to natural disasters and how we treated our less fortunate citizens is open to debate. But if we are civilized, it is because of libraries, public schools, bike paths, highways, public transit, small business loans, land grant universities, and the myriad benefits great and small that are to some extent government funded. Not to mention police, sewer workers, public health workers and the like. No where near enough, but at current taxation rates and with our current budgeting process, not much on a chance.

Another great government subsidy: land grant universities. I believe you attended one. Subsidized.

Hof, you had success with a computer game. Heck, I sometimes win at chess (or in a more simplistic mood, Risk). Doesn't mean I can conquer the world. Sim city isn't reality. It's based on someone's underlying beliefs, which are apparently similar to yours. Obviously, that person did not live in Scandinavia or Canada.

Fairness and taxes? Well, it depends who is imposing them and who is paying them. But taxes are necessary. One can whine, and swear the taxes themselves are the root of all evil, or try to ensure the taxes are as fairly proportioned as possible. What does that mean? A poll tax? A flat tax? A graduated tax? All have their proponents. I am perfectly happy with a graduated tax. But I do pay taxes and don't think its a crime or something to whine about. We should do our duties, put our shoulders to the wheel, and carry our share or more than that. Wishing taxes would go away is kind of like wishing that everyone liked you. It's a perfectly fine wish. If it comes true, you probably have some gross personality or mental deficiency, cause something isn't working right. Someone's ox is going to get gored.

Sowell: I'm not going to reread his works (not as bad as some economists or political theorists, but still) to dig up Head Start, GI Bill, or other data. Of course, anyone can use data to suit their needs, and we could toss little factoids back and forth at each other, but suffice it to say: I did not find him brilliant or particularly intellectually honest. He's your guy, not mine. This is my blog, and I'm not spouting neocon drivel all over the place. I have a teething one year old who is learning to feed herself. That's enough drivel. There are plenty of websites where you can sing his praises. This isn't one of them.

As for your humanitarian impulses, it's not a silly question. Lots of people do nothing. You say you don't. Good for you. It would be more believable if you expressed concern for others (rather than a desire to tell them what to do, which is rather a different, less attractive trait) and a wish to help them. If you have and I've missed it, my apologies. But the concerns of the world and how to deal with them (and how you specifically intend to deal with them) certainly do not appear as part of your online oevre and persona that I am aware of. In real life, you may be Lord Bountiful. If so, good for you. You do not write or describe yourself in that manner. That's all.

Distracting response? Well, again, as in fairness and taxes, it all depends on where we get the data for the baseline, who massages it, and so on. I think, for instance, public libraries are invaluable and shows the invalidity of your first benchmark: "What crisis/problem was in place?" Why does there have to be a crisis? Things actually work better (literacy, health, savings) if one addresses them prior to a crisis. When one perceives a need, for instance. Public schools and libraries, the interstate, student loans, etc. all fall into that category. Firemen, we want them to respond to a crisis. A teacher or a librarian doing his or her job should not be having crises except from external sources. Same with education, financial policy whatever.

Only bad managers wait for a crisis to solve to make themselves look good. Good parents, managers, lawyers, and governments don't wait until corpses are floating in the streets, people are rioting, etc. etc. You fix the problem in the pre-problem stage.

Specific problems: Again, rather the crisis management mode. Libraries, public schools, regulated banking, subsidized art, even the military. You don't wait until invaded to play war games, recruit, arm, etc. You prepare in advance. Same with repairing your levees, sewer systems, and anything. If specific problems do arise, okay, go fix them, and we can debate methodology. But to link effectiveness to only problems ignores the whole idea of being proactive, which is generally cheaper in the long run. Diet now, and avoid the heart attack later.

As for changing measurements, that is a problem, and it's a problem for Sowell and everyone else. Things don't remain static. But the first two pretty much make the third useless anyway. Let's go by the big numbers, death rates and the like. The nice well-run socially proactive states have higher standards or living, lower mortality rates, and generally are easier to drive in, except Japan, of course.

Much more of this and I may decide to ban any more Neocon talk on this blog without detailing things the espousing neocon has done that have actually helped people. This is a blog about my personal feelings, not "who's right". I'm interested in what people do, how they help each other, etc. The human condition is pretty grim. Tell us how you make it better.

hofzinser said...

Before I drive you to censor me or others you wish to label "Neocon", I will resign myself from participating from here forward. I cannt keep the discussion focused on one thing anyway.

For what its worth, I am dissapointed. We've had good debates in the past that stayed focused.

Take care and farewell.

Foilwoman said...

Am I detecting some condescension? Hof, in the past, we had debates where whenever I raised an issue you didn't like to discuss you simply wouldn't respond. You issued edicts about behavior without providing guidance or assistance. I was plenty focussed in my post and my comments -- newsflash, you're commenting on my thread. If you really can't answer the questions I asked, or don't want to do so, say so, but admit that the lack of focus is more your issue. You are not the sole determinant of what gets debated, what facts are relevant, and what issues are important. Here, btw, you're a guest commenting on my issues, and you've gone sadly off topic. The topic by the way is not "what should the government do or not do". It was what should we, as individuals, as members of a society, as the electorate, as churchgoers, as whatever do for those who have less. Less money, less intelligence, less family support, less status in society, less education, less wherewithal of any variety. Not what should we tell others to do, but what should we do and what do we do. It's not theoretical. It's what we do (or don't do) every day.

Should you actually be willing to discuss those issues (and reply to the questions I asked responding to your questions) feel free to post again. If you can't do that, well, good luck and goodbye.

Oh, and I did miss one of your hypotheticals before: would I trust Dubya with my money for my kid rather than me. No, I don't. But the way a democratic society has to work is that we have to accept that even though a morally vacuous pinhead has been elected (at least once, despite the concerns about Ohio in 2004) President, he is the President (remember, he was bringing dignity to the White House?). I can't only pay taxes for Presidents I support or programs I support. I pay them for everything. But no, I didn't vote for him. He's a moral and mental midget of limited (if any) vision and no empathy or compassion. I'm pleased to say (no surprises here) that I did not vote for him and would feel ashamed if I did.

On a completely separate note: remember the whole, "It's not the sex, it's the lying" theme of Monica-gate? Where are those people now? Dubya wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the face, nor would Rowe or Libby or any of those guys. Or they'd know it, they just wouldn't talk to it at a cocktail party.

Benedict 16th said...

Well Hofz, as much as I am normally comfortable playing the pessimist, it is with optimism I would hope that we* as humankind are mature enough to cooperate** and through higher gestures, walking together, even if I have to slow down a bit, rather than the trickle down effect from the top end of the dung heap.
Benny XVI


* shit, even evangelistic neocons, they at least make Communism*** look "not so bad" historically
** I think that is what governments are supposed to do but certainly been challenged in my thinking lately.
*** what was the quote from the 70's .... it was something like this "Communism is the exploitation of man by man, Capitalism is the exact reverse"

gmblsxgl = gamble (gambol?) sexy girl?

Foilwoman said...

My Eminence: Thanks, but I think Hof's real issue is that I am debating on my terms, not his. Oh well, he irked me. Now he's gone. Quel dommage.

Innana1 said...

Geez --
Hof seems like he got his position,then looked for reasons to support it, rather than the other way around.
One comment: if our government is so untrustworthy, why do we have them snarfling up our young people to send to war? And regulating our medical and educational systems? And food inspection? etc.? I think the position really is, I trust them when they do things I would do myself. Giving money to people I don't like is untrustworthy.

This made my stomach hurt -- I only sense selfishness, not any kind of intellectual debating points.

Foilwoman said...

What surprised me the most was the assumption that the terms as he discussed them were the terms, with no possibility for another frame of reference. Especially given that this really isn't a forum for political debate. Unless my taking over the known world is a subject for political debate.

So, the crisis we need to address now is this: how do we resolve the crisis of the high Red State divorce rate? It's higher than blue states. And Baptists have higher divorce rates than atheists or agnostics. What's that about? Whoops, I'm a snotnose. I really am.