what do we, as individuals and as society, owe those less fortunate?

"Owe" is a strong word, but I mean it so. I think this is the question underlying the whole Edwards' house thing, and might be something we want to discuss.

It's a no-brainer to me that it's in our best interests, individually and as a group, to address the needs of the poor (immediate and long-term) and enable folks to move into the middle class. But what does that mean? Personal sacrifice and effort, ok, but are there limits? If so, what are they? And what to do to bring about a long-term solution to poverty?

For discussion, if anyone's interested.

Even if you lack any compassion or humanitarian concern, it is absolutely in our shared national interest to have a healthy and educated population.

At the same time, no one can be made to do certain things. No matter what the educational system, if you don't want to take advantage of it you won't. Even with 100% free health care, if you don't want to be healthy you can manage not to be.

If everyone has true access and opportunity, it's on the individual to make the most of it.

I harp a bit on access to healthcare and education, because I think those are key. And that's what I think we - as a collective - owe every citizen.

:thumbsup:

There is no substitute. Private philanthropy cannot make the difference for a society that chooses to not provide enough in tax revenue to pay for these items. I'm willing to pay more, if it isn't getting dumped in the war profiteering maw.

There's still a place in that model for philanthropy - to provide beyond the minimum, or to enhance services.

But the taxation is necessary.

them. As Americans, we must realize how the birth lottery smiled on us and placed us here in this country that offers such rich opportunities to live well. We owe it to those less fortunate to share our good fortune both here in America and in other less fortunate countries. Those of us who call ourselves Christians owe whatever we can give to those less fortunate. I happen to believe that those Christians who preach a if-you-love-Jesus-he'll-make-you-rich theology are following a bullshit, selfish, rationalized ethic. None of us should be happy with our wealth until all of us at least have enough.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can afford to do a lot of things depending on what I give up. How much is acceptable to keep?

And I agree totally with your take on the "Jesus wants you to be rich" thing.

Is the point to give away so much that you're at the same financial level?

If you're a physician, earning $140k, let's say, should you be expected to give 100k of it away every year?

...But an avenue for those willing to struggle , achievement should be their reward ,and not something kept as favors to the franchised.

who doesn't have the first clue about how to go about the struggle? Or is too involved in the daily struggle to keep body and soul together to worry about a different struggle?

There I said it.


Not everyone is suited to work from cradle to grave.

Some people undergoing medical treatment may not be able to work.

I have known people so ill they can't work yet their illness may not qualify as a disability that would give them disability benefits. Others have to wait a few months to a few years to go through the disability process and are unable to earn income during that time.

If I broke an arm or a leg, I wouldn't be able to do my job. Yet a broken arm or leg wouldn't be considered a disability. I wouldn't get SSI. I would have no income. I don't think some other job would hire me that way either.

Other people may not be able to work because they need to take care of a family member who is very ill and needs constant care.

There are lots of reasons that someone may not be able to work.

And sometimes the jobs just aren't there either and people shouldn't have to freeze or starve or sleep on the streets because of that.

Is it just food, clothing and a dry place to sleep?

I don't think it's difficult to see what people need.

It is much harder to justify deprivation in others while maintaining a better material status.

I don't think the "I earned it" argument holds much water unless reel need is filled first.

How much of that physician's salary should be taxed to support others?

Of the amount not taxed, how much would be enough for the physician contribute to put her at the place you feel would mean she has given enough.

(Lest this sound snippy, I don't mean it to. I support a progressive tax model, and charitable giving. But I'd like to take on a specific rather than an abstract.)

it should be taxed at the highest possible level that anyone at that salary is taxed.

Of course, that could be offset by the amount of free medical care the physician is willing to provide.

The argument that highly paid professionals should be financially rewarded to compensate for the years they've spent learning their profession doesn't impress me since society and working people have supported them all those years.

If their annual income is $140k, what should their net income be?

And after that what amount should they be expected to give to charity?

Please use specific $ amounts. And for the sake of simplicity, assume this hypothetical physician provides no free care.

If I cared to pursue this with you, I'd ask you to give me the household size, zip code and any special needs in the household. But I don't.

Why don't you focus on what poor people need to live on before discussing tax rates for professionals?

what they can, or poor people should get what they need.

The hard part comes in figuring out what that means in real terms, and who decides.

However, I would place the priority on meeting the threshold needs of the poor first. And that includes a lot of stuff, housing, health care, libraries, transportation, education, food, clothing, electricity, etc., etc.

The fight begins exactly at that level as those who stand to lose property argue that the poor should not receive many of these things as entitlements but should earn them as they did. You know that line of bullshit as well as I.

Only when these rights and entitlements are met would I worry about what the wealthier keep.

As to who decides, if the battle to define these rights is won, the victors will decide.

A question for you: do you think capitalism can ever adequately and fairly define what human beings need?

can or should define.

I think it's necessary to determine what the more wealthy will keep because it's the other half of the equation - you've got people you can get money from, and people you want money to go to. Somewhere the two have to balance. You can only give what you can take.

What I'm looking for is the hypothetical threshold.

And the only purpose of any economic system is to define, serve and meet human needs and values.

There's no flat tax or progressive rate solution.

The choice is between property rights as the primary human value and meeting needs as the primary human value.

Unless a society can squarely define material needs of people - a true threshold - and meet them, the question of how much the wealthy keep is a short-term question, because the issue will ultimately be resolved in violence.

The disparity in wealth and needs that we see now is entirely supported by violence, from this ridiculous war to the daily violence of children growing up in poverty, a violence more subtle but far more damaging.

The rhetoric of Republicans is always couched in property rights. Political leaders who gives the broadest possible definition to people's needs, and works to meet them, is the only proper antidote short of a revolution.

There aren't any Pell Grants or government money given to physicians during Medical School, Residency or Post-Residency training. Society doesn't pay for their training. They do.
Most complete their education with loans. They endure years of debt and rigorous training (4 years college, 4 years medical school, and then add on specialty training...for instance, surgeons go another 4 years...and if they want to be anything other than a general surgeon, tack on some more years. They can't work a job through these years because of the demands of their medical training and on-call schedules. When leaving school...most are heavy in debt that takes years to pay off before they can actually enjoy the fruits of their struggles.
So...how do you feel about paying entertainment figures high salaries?

And I don't buy that medical students are self-supporting. These student loans come with government guarantees; these institutions and medical centers have tons of public money flowing though them.

The amount of debt they incur is obscene. Maybe there should be a government health insurance program to employ them and absorb their debt.

So . . . how do you feel about paying high insurance premiums?

Ask a physician.
There are several around here that post.

People here seem to like to throw stones but shy away from actually figuring out how to address it.

I think the biggest obstacle for the poor is the seeming lack of any coherent way to get out of poverty. Americans are fond of proclaiming that anyone who works hard can do whatever they want but they don't tend to address those who have no idea how to begin that.

I think the most positive things we can do about poverty are to institute programs that help keep people from falling into it in the first place and that help them climb out of it if they're already there. Things like -

Job training programs
Resume writing programs
Job interview workshops
Child care programs
Job placement programs
Transportation assistance
Low-cost addiction assistance
Medical assistance


Also -

After school programs
Career programs for schoolchildren
Parenting classes for both adults and teens
Mentoring programs
College prep programs
Programs to help low income students find funding for higher education

All of these things are the first things to feel the budget axe when things get tight and they're the things that I see as most likely to help people out of tough situations. We need to quit funding prisons and start funding people.

you say, it dropped like a rock.

It was too bad because instead of hypotheticals about converting WalMarts or recreating the whole system, it was an actual plan by a real city with a real timeline, and I would have like to see what people thought about it.

Sorry I missed it.

Poverty and homelessness are the two issues I feel most strongly about.

First, this line -

"Place homeless people as quickly as possible in permanent housing and then help them to stabilize and function independently by providing them with the supportive services they need to be successful in their homes."

One of the things that I find to be counter-productive in many efforts is the insistence that a person "clean up" before they are given help or as a condition to the help being given. Although obviously this is desired, to make it a condition before anything is done is not helpful - it's going to make that person, who is dependent on whatever, hesitate.

As I've said so many times, it's hard enough to quit an addiction or straighten up your life when you have a secure home - even harder when you're homeless. Get 'em off the street - THEN start to fix what's wrong. I applaud this approach.

Also, this -

"A Consumer Advisory Council will be comprised of people who are currently homeless or who have experienced homelessness in the past who will represent the broad interests and needs of homeless people countywide."

Bring in people who know what the issues are and the obstacles. Smart.

All in all, it sounds like an ambitious but workable plan with enough flexibility to be refined as needed. It covers a lot of areas, rather than taking a narrow view.

how they're going to build the public will...

but they don't tend to address those who have no idea how to begin that.

That seems like the biggest obstacle to me.

Excellent post!

Everything on your list has been slashed and burned since the Reagan years which also seemed to promote the idea that taxes were horrible when viewed as investments for the greater good of society, but not so bad when the monies were/are spent to build up a military machine and to fund corporations that research and develop weapons.

I may be an oddball, but I didn't really mind paying taxes when I at least thought they would be spent to the betterment of society. It seems that now the only investment that I feel I'm making by paying taxes is toward a massive military machine and the debt incurred to finance war and armaments.

I'm still trying to think of a plan to change the hearts and minds of Americans to be more focused and concerned with the items on your list - just how to convince people to care more about funding for people.

... alot of people in this country seem to have forgotten that little gem.

I have grace from God (because i am better than you) and you must have done something not to have God's grace.

Seriously, a colleague told me how much she hated that phrase - I asked why, as I thought it was such a humbling sentiment, and she described how her conservative religious friends used the phrase as a sentiment of condescension and self-righteousness.

*sigh* :-(

Fits right in with the whole "prayer of Jabez" (or whatever) ethos, I guess. :scared:

:mad: And they call themselves "Christians", no doubt. :spank:

'Christians' " nonetheless. Funny thing, this hoosier Christian NEVER had heard the phrase used this way - but am not in a fundy, evangelical nor literalist Christian community - so it was an eyebrow raiser. Part of why I hate generalizations about Christians - by either side. Had to laugh when some fundy in B-ton wrote the paper stating the HUGE percentage of Americans that were Christian and then went on to 'disqualify' different kind of Christians as not being 'real Christians'... Hey Buddy --- can't have it both ways - can't count all mainstream/mainline Christians that don't agree with your theocratic view and that YOU dismiss and then claim that the HUGe majority of Americans agree with you. Idjiots.

I remember once venturing on a travel site. People were discussing traveling to developing countries like Thailand, India, Malaysia etc. and as much as some of us get ticked off by some stuff we read say here, venture out into apolitical parts of the internet and there with their identities masked, you see how a lot of apolitical/mildly right/libertarian leaning people actually think...


It is shocking the complete lack of empathy and how what I like to think of as the "birth lottery" is completely ignored. People were giving each other tips of how to avoid those "disgusting beggars" and how repulsed they were by the stark poverty they saw in some parts of the world?

Repulsed by poverty :shrug:...? It is such a simple concept "There but for the grace of God, go I"..

more of an appreciation of what I have - friends, family, health. I see someone apparently without those things and can't explain the difference. Chalk it up to luck-of-the-draw, grace-of-God, whatever.

Thanks for the reminder, hippiechick.

There are no other people, there is only every moment of time,
dripping swiftly though fingers grasping at every grain,
or not grasping,
and the totality speaks with profound voices from every place,
every body, mind and lips, eyes and life lies,
none of them verbal.

Everyone has a private relationship with the totality; who am i to
interfere. If a person(s) crosses my path, i'll do my best for them,
manifestation of godhead is however aware,
or not,
and in that picture of a connected immensity,
with every vision taking place within the totality omniscient,
better even than video tape.

Consciousness owns all, and owns nothing, self, individual and society indeed.

For whatever reason, psychological, sociological, historical, I feel that I am.

We were poor when I was a kid. Hungry, homeless (at times), no shoes, poor. Sometimes, people helped us out. Nothing big, a few bucks, a meal, a ride.

Who knows what causes people, whatever their background, to seek to intervene for people in need?

Whatever it is, I have it. I have no illusions about "ending world poverty" or anything approaching it. I do what I can, when I can, where I can. "The poor", "The needy", "The Third World", are fairly meaningless terms because they reduce the poor, the needy, the abused, the forgotten, to statistics.

They are people. They are my brothers.

in my post below.

"The poor", "The needy", "The Third World", are fairly meaningless terms because they reduce the poor, the needy, the abused, the forgotten, to statistics

Same here...

They are people. They are my brothers.

But how does one go about helping to make that a more common understanding? Our political language is poor as well.

And no one pushed for specifics has yet come up with any.

It point up how difficult the issue really is.

Thanks for asking the question.

I appreciate everyone who's taken a stab at it.

Health care as a right, adequate and safe food and shelter guaranteed. A non-factory education.

This deserves its own thread, of course, but since we're here...:hi:

Dump the factory model.

Think about the way children learn vital things like walking, speaking, responding to social situations, using various things around the house like furniture, forks, tooth brushes, toys, etc., playing board games....

We don't lecture roomfuls of kids. We show them and they try, we encourage them and they keep trying. It's positive. Expectations are realistic and based on physical and brain development. It's one-on-one and very small group with many different people. It works the same in different settings.

Think about child play. About how the play of the young is always a role-playing of roles they see themselves growing into. Kittens, puppies, and kids, too. Think about how, when they are exploring these roles, they are moving, talking, and doing. They are not sitting passively, watching, listening, or filling in the blank.

Kids who later struggle to read and write learn to walk and talk without the same struggles.

So...small groups of kids, more adults, more DOING, less sitting, more active engagement with others and with their own learning. Less paper/pencil, less testing. More performance assessments. More developmental rubrics, fewer grades. More modeling, more trying without threat of failure or high stakes. More experiences that build prior knowledge, expand and enrich current knowledge. More projects that require practical application of skills learned. More explorations and conversations that encourage inquiry and higher level thinking. More relationship building between teacher and family and student; a longer period of time with each teacher. Individualized, rather than standardized, curriculum and instruction.

More parent ed to provide prospective parents, and parents from birth - school years, with a good understanding about what kind of an environment grows neural connections and learning, and what depresses it.

More community support for those whose environments are not conducive to kids who thrive physically, mentally, socially, and emotionally.

Sound like a good start? ;)

an education and decent health care.

Beyond that, it's as was said above, opportunity and a fair chance.

But the basics? Really ought not to be debatable. Sadly, they are.

Whether they choose vocational school or traditional college is up to them. Daycare should be provided during the post-secondary education for those needing it.
Everyone should have equal access to GOOD healthcare. Mental illness should be treated.
Hard working people shouldn't have to rely on Medicaid and Food stamps to help make it. They should be PAID a living wage.

That's a basic commitment to our shared humanity, IMHO.

If you are on the path to enlightenment, then you owe them everything. Otherwise, all you owe the weak is a kick in the jaw.

why are people homeless to begin with, you can then start to determine how to attack the problem. In my limited experience a decent percentage of the homeless at the shelter where I volunteer have mental health problems. Many of them are there year after year. many others do not have mental health problems, and it appears, from talking to them, that their biggest problem is coming up with the downstroke for an apartment. It is extremely hard for some folks to come up with two months rent in advance. Some apartments require more than that. Others have drug or alcohol problems. Those who would be the most challenging to place would be ones who have mental health problems coupled with substance abuse problems. Some can check "all the above." If we can develop a matrix covering the myriad reasons people become homeless we can figure out a way to address the problem in an orderly fashion. It's not unsolvable.

If you are concerned about labor exploitation overseas, you don't engage in excessive consumerism. Is you are concerned about sustainable living, you are conscientious about where your products come from. If you are concerned about energy independence, you build a house that is energy independent.

And for the love of god, you don't say you shop at Target and then turn around and build a 10,000 sq ft home.

It's not about poverty at all. It's about walking the talk.

but the OP was.

It's all connected.

We don't know because people won't ask. No, all of my stuff isn't made in union shops. But I do buy used most of the time, do pay attention to where new items come from, and I'm not a millionaire who can afford to do everything possible to ensure my lifestyle doesn't exploit human beings or the planet. It's not enough to write a check or blather about poverty when you aren't going to make the personal changes necessary to bring about a global change. I think it's comical to boast about shopping at a union big box too, when all the products inside are made by slave labor in foreign countries in factories that pollute so badly that we hear of people not having water for days because of chemical discharges.

People can spend their money any way they want???

That house represents every single thing DU fights against on a daily basis. If the Edwards truly made sure every item in the house is green, then it would be awesome if they would stand up and say so. ALL of our Democratic leaders should care about what they're purchasing, how it's made, and who has made it.

We live in the richest nation in the entire history of the world. Caesar and Pharaoh would be humbled in 21st century America. There is no excuse.

Education:
Everybody deserves a good education. Not everybody has access to one. There'd be a hell of a lot fewer problems in this country and in individual's lives if we, as a society, valued education. We pay education lip-service, and then tune in to "American Idol" reruns (but I'm not bitter ;)).

Employment:
Everybody deserves a job with a living wage, and if "living wage" means owners or shareholders make less, so be it. Can you really picture the Wal-Mart children saying, "Gosh, we only made 50 billion instead of a 100 billion like last year. Screw it. Let's close the company down."?

And along the same lines: BRING BACK THE CCC, and all the other depression-era programs like it. The TVA cost a lot of money when it electrified the South, but can anyone rationally argue that it wasn't great economically for the country as a whole in the long run? Besides the national and state parks (I've been to dozens of them, and much of their work is still standing proudly), what about the roads and bridges these people built? Along with expanding newer programs such as Teach For America and Americorps, people can earn money, contribute to society, and build a stronger nation; then, when reintroduced into the "real" world, have valuable job skills that many employers would drool over.

Also, stop sending jobs overseas. In the short run, off-shoring makes good economic sense. But what about in 20 years? How many people left will be able to afford that cheap shit made in SE Asia?

And, while we're at it, maybe we could convince people that buying shit doesn't make you happy? Depression diagnoses have gone through the roof over the last few decades. Not just because of quacks or pharmaceutical companies selling us yet MORE shit that we don't need, but because we seem to think that the only way we'll be happy is by buying more shit. We're working longer and harder than ever before to get money to buy stuff to make us happy, and yet we're more miserable than we've ever been. Maybe we should work on improving ourselves in small ways, and for the long-term, than getting an HDTV or a sportier car.

Food, clothing, and shelter:
Everybody deserves these things. Period.

Safety:
Poverty breeds crime. There's a lack of education, a lack of hope, a desperateness, and an (understandable) materialism at work. Besides the psychological stress poverty itself induces (how do I pay the bills? how do I get to work? what happens if I get sick? will my children eat tonight?), the ever-present threat of violent crime can induce an almost permanent PTSD in even the toughest of individuals.

Health Care:
Starting from the prenatal on up, and including low-cost abortion for those who feel it's the right choice. And no, I'm not suggesting that poor people should have abortions, but I've had friends who have had children -- and love them and support them the best they can -- because they simply could not find an affordable abortion provider. $300 is a lot of money when you're on welfare.

There's an awful lot of homeless people on the street who could be normal, functioning members of society if they had access to good therapy and/or medication. Thanks, Ronnie -- it's been 25 years, and the mentally ill homeless are still out there in record numbers (and, as with so many other things, private charity has STILL barely scratched the surface).

MENTAL health care, btw, could be applied to a lot more than the homeless. Besides the aforementioned PTSD (and impulse-control issues, a subject for another thread), the working class does have a slightly higher percentage of substance abuse than the upper class. Mainly because wealthier people can afford the education to prevent it and the treatment to stop it. No one wants to be an alcoholic or a junky. Maybe we can furnish addicts with the tools necessary for a productive life (mental health care, decent employment, education) so that substance abuse isn't the only alternative to a miserable life.

A final note:
So many of us wish we had more "quality family time." I've discovered that quality family time doesn't have to mean going to the zoo or playing board games. While those things are important, and we play a lot of board games and love camping and zoos, just as important is volunteering. Work for a progressive political campaign with your kid, work with the homeless and bring the kids along, join in a Martin Luther King Day parade with the whole family. The change occurs at all levels, big and small.

And I would say the truth would set us free, clearing the smoke and revealing the shadows in Plato's cave for what they are, life, awareness, a thing to be experienced individually by each and everyone of us, the awesome journey of life, when you know your on it, every thing is sacred, and leaves no one behind.
This I believe is what we are striving for, but for the shadow and smoke makers to awake.

we understand that we could be the "other", meaning the poor, the murderer, the saint too.

To me, life is as another poster said a "birth lottery".

So, what do we owe them? We owe truth and its implied counterpart-understanding. Policy solutions, while encouraging and necessary, will not eliminate suffering. Until the global revolution in human consciousness we will have those who are less fortunate and those who are more fortunate. But wait, we won't have a revolution in global consiousness you say? Oh yes we will, but you and I probably won't be here to see it. If life is to continue it is a necessity.

for starters.

interesting OP and thread. I've been reading it, and considering if I should add my two cents. What I'm about to say is only my opinion, and others may agree or disagree with it.

I was born into a family that had, because of larger economic trends, over two generations, been expelled from Ireland, "made it" in the USA, and then lost it during the Great Depression. My family had recently relocated from a comfortable neighborhood, to the largest "low-income" neighborhood in this part of rural, upstate New York.

We moved out of that neighborhood when I was young. As an angry teen, I would move back there, along with an apartment full of reckless youth. Some of us ended up incarcerated, some dead, some continued to inhabit the marginal lifestyle, and a few went on to consider that just a "phase" of their lives that they would rather forget.

I would go on to college, and worked for decades in human services. A significant amount of my time was spent working in that large, poor neighborhood. I can honestly say that the poverty and angry teen years were as much a part of my education as was college.

It isn't possible for me to say what anyone else owes the poor, but one thing comes to mind. And that is that as a society, we gain when we invest in the people who live in poverty. We do not know what human potential is lost, forever, from the neglect of the poor. It may be the next Malcolm X. Or it may be as simple as a person who enriches her community as a volunteer. It could be any number of possibilities.

For me as an individual, it involves one of Gandhi's teachings: "I recognize no God except that Godthat is to be found in the hearts of the dumb millions."

:thumbsup:

"enable folks to move into the middle class"

"a long-term solution to poverty"

If there is a middle class, by definition doesn't a lower class have to exist at all times? Doesn't really solve anything.

As we know, the middle class has many demands, and those demands never decrease. Yes, we all want to consume less energy, but we all want to travel large distances, as quickly as possible. Well, individual consumption may be less with tax incentives and such, but overall consumption only grows, because more people end up using more. Nothing comes for free.

As long as a middle class exists, poverty can never not exist. If the middle class goes away, we end up with two classes, the high and low. Still, wouldn't that mean that there is poverty? At least at the low end of the lower class. So then you have to get rid of concentrations of wealth altogether, and that only happens with an ever increasing(that word again) government. Now you're down to one class, but the bottom of that one class can be considered to be poor. Unless everyone has everything. We have 6.5 billion people on this planet with as much right to have everything as everyone else. Where is our habitat if that happens? Nothing comes for free.

Of course we can't tell countries like China and India to stop, as we're not even attempting to stop. So we all end up chasing the destination which doesn't exist. There is no perfect state for any amount of people, let alone 6.5+ billion people. In our desire to find that destination, we'll end up destroying the village to save ourselves from some problem that isn't there. We either get an energy churning machine that meets the demands of every single person on the planet, or we have a habitat. It's one or the other, and not both. We don't get to have everything. Yet we can't tell anyone that they can't have everything. So we either voluntarily accept less of everything on a massive scale(fat goddamn chance), or we are forced to accept less of everything on a massive scale by the limits of existence. Since progress is all we do, I know where I would put my bet.

How about we say "enable folks to attain and maintain a decent standard of living"? But then what's "decent"?

then the answer is to lower population. I notice you omitted that option. Are you one of those birth-control-is-ungodly types?

you're right "owe" is a stong word.

and make sure they know how to use the fishing pole we gave them. If they are unable to fish for whatever reason, handicapped or whatever, we continue to help them to help themselves. We don't abandon them out of convenience. We stand by them as we would members of our own family.

seems to be a question about how the 'void' would be filled, or paid for.

I know this is a very unpopular stand, but I would start with the military- We are willing to spend unknown amounts of money to build, develop, and use weapons and energy to destroy and control others- but are stingy as hell when it comes to 'life giving' endeavors.

"Security" isn't everything- what good is a "panic room" if we have starved and neglected our family to build "Protection" against the possibility of enemies attacking? There is no 'possibility' when it comes to food and shelter. People cannot survive without them.

True Majority shows where the priorities lie in this country- and they are out of whack.

How much money as been used on "Star Wars"? How can we justify the spending that the Pentagon is involved with???