How best to help the poor?

[Machjo]

The first step is to describe poor. Canada doesn't really have a poverty problem if you compare it to some other countries. We have a high cost of living problem. Lots of people making 10-15,000 could get by in many small towns where the cost of living is lower. At the very least, somebody living on a disability pension in Vancouver could dramatically increase their standard of living by moving to Maple Creek Saskatchewan. Perhaps we should look at giving the poor the opportunity and financial assistance to move.

That could be an option too. Again, it's a matter of giving the needy (not always financially poor, but in whatever sence of the word) more options to suit their needs to get them back on their feet rather than pidgeon-hole them.

Getting back to Darkbeaver, again this is a totally separate issue form the quesiton of how much money to give the poor, which would be an issue for another thread. The quesiton here is how the money that is available, however much that might be, is spent. Even if the NDP had a majority government, this issue would still have to be tackled. Granted, the poor would have more money available to them under an NDP government, but again, do we give them the option of coosing whether they want the money itself or direct assistance?

And as for Cauck, that's another point. We could for example, say that we can give them more educaitonal or training opportunities in a small town than in the big city. Their choice. If they really want help, they wouldn't mind moving to a small town for a year or two to get free educaiton in a trade or profession all expenses paid where the real estate and salaries are lower. Again it's not about us evil right-wingers trying to hurt them, but rather giving them more options. You'd tink theleft would support more options for the poor.

 

[Machjo]

The first step is to describe poor. Canada doesn't really have a poverty problem if you compare it to some other countries. We have a high cost of living problem. Lots of people making 10-15,000 could get by in many small towns where the cost of living is lower. At the very least, somebody living on a disability pension in Vancouver could dramatically increase their standard of living by moving to Maple Creek Saskatchewan. Perhaps we should look at giving the poor the opportunity and financial assistance to move.

And another good point here. Since social assistance is a provincial matter, it makes it difficult for the poor, if le't say they'ere on social assistance, tojust pack up and move province to take a job offer. If they leave the province, assistance is cut.

With private charities, this problem would not exist since they would have nothing to do with the government. So if the person gets a job opportunity in another province, the charity would be more than happy to help him, pay his moving expenses, buy work boots for him or whateve to help him get established. With the government, they'd likely refuse his request for help because it owuld be out of their procvincial jurisdiction.

 

[lone wolf]

That might be fine if the bureaucracy worked that way. The biggest illusion in any social services office is that sign that says "we care". Their obligation is to save the province's money. To do so, they interpret rules that should not be subject to interpretation by petty bureaucrats.

 

[Machjo]

Another poit I can see is psychological. A person in need of help might not go ask for help because of shame. He's afraid to ask for help, especially if he had a good job before. Though he might totally qualify for assistance, he might choose to live off of hard-earned savings until the savings run out, still unsuccessful in his job search, and only then hesitatingly go ask for help when he's on the verge of eviction.

For such persons, again, we can have a majority NDP government in power offering the most bountiful cheques, and yet this person might be too proud to ask for help because of shame, depending on his culture and how he was raised.

How do we get such a person to ask for help? Through government, they don't know how to handle this kind of situation, All they know is how to cut a cheque, however much it might be.

Private charities on the other hand could be much more flexible. To take an example:

A man walks into the office of a private charity (assuming we had a system that provided them with mosre money instead of giving that money to government bureaucracy), and asks if he could volunteer at low salary. They ask if he nedds help, and he pauses and then, thinking about it, says, hesitatingly, no.

They read betwee the lines, see that he's having a hard time with asking for help, so instad of offering him assistance, they start asking him waht his abilities are, and finally offer him a 'job' where he gets to say in the dorm, and eat at the cafeteria, or take a decent salary.

Now though the salary is low, one of the perks of his 'job' is extra free job training on Saturdays.

Now he feels more happy about it because he's making more of a contribution, even if most of the work involves just cleaing his own dorm and attending classes. Well, his face is saved, he gets the help, and doesn't feel resentful for having paid taxes all these years and never got help when he needed it.

A governmetn agency, even under the NDP, would be clueless as to how to handle such aperson. Right now we have a one-size-fits-all system. Private charities could solve that if more money was diverted their way. They could forge relations with companies to provide necessary job skills, etc. too. (thogh to be fair, that last part is done somewhat well by governments right now, but its the other inflexibilities I see problems with.)

 

[Machjo]

That might be fine if the bureaucracy worked that way. The biggest illusion in any social services office is that sign that says "we care". Their obligation is to save the province's money. To do so, they interpret rules that should not be subject to interpretation by petty bureaucrats.

But if they were private charities, they woulnd't be bound by petty bureaucracy, provincial boundaries, etc.

 

[Machjo]

Of course a private charity would still be bound by a budget, and would need to establish all kinds of comunity networks. That would be no different from government bureaucracy. The main difference would be in its flexibility in offering what the person needs rather than a cookie-cutter answer to every problem

 

[darkbeaver]

Certainly the rich must carry their share of the burden. But it doesn't matter how much money a rich man gives, not all the needy need money. Some do, some don't. Those who need money should get money. But those for whom money could be harmful (if a person cannot control his impulses or addictions, then the more money we give him, the more detrimental it becomes) should have the option of direct non-monetary assistance, in the form of room, board, any necessary education, rehab, and other necessities. And of course the option shoud be his.

We could be under an NDP majority government in all levels of government right now, with the rich paying taxes through the roof, and still some poor might need special help beyond just money, or for whom money could even be detrimental. Let's take an example:

A person goes to the government for help. He asks for room and board, and help to teach him a trade or profession that could help him earn money for himself.

The worker doesn't take the hint and offers him a checque instead. Now let's say the guy reacts and asks if it would be possible to just get decent room and board somewhere and that he'd even be willing to volunteer to clean the place, work in the kitchen, etc.

The worker just says that that's not an option and that he just has to take the cheque.

For all we know, the guy might not trust himself with money. It's got nothing to do with how much the rich might or might not be paying in taxes. That would be an issue for a totally separate thread. The issue being dealt with here has nothing to do with the money per se, but rather in how that money goes towards helping the person. Nothig to do with the quantity of money (again, a debate for another thread), but rather with how it is handled, and what options are available the needy.

I'm assuming that your assuming there will be some sort of reprieve for the present system and after a period of economic adjustment we will once again sail in waters we have become accustomed too. I don't. I'm suggesting the ultimate taxation of the rich Machjo not another temporary shifting of the burden just the last in a series streching back into the dim past.
What we have to do is to objectively examine the facts to detrermine exactly where this burden lays and what or who it really is. We have two factions the rich and the rest, some of us are confused about who's been carrying who, the rich carry nobody, they support no one, they pay nothing, they educate none, they are worth nothing, they represent a perrenial drain on the resources of this planet and have for all time been riding the backs of the poor and the ignorant.
Poverty is not an intractable problem of the poor it is the bludgeon of the wealthy the tool of rotten power a weapon of extermination. Money hasn't got a future there are better mediums of exchange. The rich and thier paper are finished.
Education eh, that's it, the pivot, the tipper, the real hope, the hottest button anywhere, the cure. That's why we don't get any but the worst mass produced crap that destroys more braincells than drugs I bet. No it isn't where I lost mine. Free universal education would end poverty on this planet in less than one generation.
What about GAI for a start, it would improve support distribution. In any case whatever we do has to be geared for massive economic contraction, chronic food and fuel shortages and a blossoming global war at an end of empire type events unfolding now.
How best to help the poor was the question, understanding where they come from is very important. I think mostly they come from injustice. What a nice little rant about the poor, I feel great, of course they're still poor but I'm sure they appreciate our paving the road to hell for them with good intentions.:smile:

 

[lone wolf]

But if they were private charities, they woulnd't be bound by petty bureaucracy, provincial boundaries, etc.

Private charities are very often the first victims in times of recession. Once you have all these people depending on a private charity and more desperate to get on an ever shrinking board, what happens when donations fail? You can bet government won't rush to fill the void. The poor aren't taxpayers so they matter very little in the greedy scheme of things.

 

[Machjo]

I fully agree that the rich should pay their fair share. I can also accept universal compulsory education. But at times a person will end up with no money for whatever reason, whether or not it's his fault is another issue. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, they need help at that point. Different poor people react differently to different circumstances.

Now here's a point I don't like to talk about, more personal, but I'll say it here. One of the points above was me about ten years ago. After my divorce, I'd got depressed, quit my job, became reclusive, gone from teetotaller to heavy drinker within five days, lived on my own income, and just did that till I'd run out of savings. Without getting into detail, I'd eventually ended up on assistance. Luckily for only about a month. But from my observations at the time, the only help they'd offered me was money, and enough to live off of had I budgeted. Yet I'd ended up spending alot of it on booze and sleeping pills so I had none left within the first two weeks.

Luckily, a friend took me in for about a month, and that was enough to get me back on track. In the end, from that particular experience, money was the worst thing they could have given me at the time. Heck, I was borderline suicidal at the time too. Money is not a good thing under the circumstances. Had their bureaucracy been more flexible, I would likely have adopted the choice of direct services for that month, not wanting the money. At that particular time, money did in fact scare me because of my desire for death at that time.

Now regardless of what you might think of such a reaction to divorce (looking back on it I agree I'd reacted way out of proportion), no amount of government funding or universal education could have saved me from that.

So to suggest that money alone woud have solved this problem is ludicrous. People do fallbetween the cracks for all kinds of reasons. You can tax the rich all you want. You can give the poor all the money you want. You can have universal educaiton all you want. Yet that will only solve those problems that do in fact relate to money or social justice relating to the ujust distribution of wealth. That in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing and I can fully understand your concern. Here though, we're not talking about strictly monetary solutions (i.e. tax the rich and give the poor more money), but rather solutions to deal with the needy who are there not necessarily for monetary reasons alone. We can solve money problems with money. We can't solve non-money problems with money. In those cases, throwing more money at the problem solves nothing. in those cases, restructuring is needed.

 

[Machjo]

Private charities are very often the first victims in times of recession. Once you have all these people depending on a private charity and more desperate to get on an ever shrinking board, what happens when donations fail? You can bet government won't rush to fill the void. The poor aren't taxpayers so they matter very little in the greedy scheme of things.

A possible solution could be to make direct taxes charity-deductible. And raise taxes if necessary. But overall, charities would yuse that money more efficiently I would think.

 

[gopher]

Jesus said, sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Can't say I know of any Christians who obey that law.

 

[Machjo]

Just another point for darkbeaver. I do agree that with resources running out, we will need to restructure our economy drastically in future, but even 1000 years from now, we will still have the poor, no matter how good the system, who will flal through the cracks for whatever reason.

Now in a poor system, they might remain poor. In an efficient system, people who become poor would rebound quickly. Certainly I could agree with the rich providing enough funding to make sure charities have enough money to help the poor to the best of their capacity. But in this thread we're dealing with the ability to adapt to specific needs that bureucracy has failed to account for beyond the strictly monetary. Even with allth emoney, they need to be more flexible, and that can't be done in a bureaucratic system.

 

[Machjo]

Jesus said, sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Can't say I know of any Christians who obey that law.

No issue with that. But that leads to another quesiton. Sell all you have, and give it to the poor, but in which form?

And all you have is not limited to the material. What about your time, and other things.

So if you see a poor man on the street, and you don't know his circumstances, do you give him money or a sandwich?

It's not a question of how much you give him, but with how much thought and appropriateness. Money does not solve every problem, though money is part of the solution without a doubt.

 

[gopher]

For years I have monitored right wing Christian professing radio shows. Only once have I ever heard a discussion on the subject of Jesus' instruction about giving away your money to the poor. As it was, when the preacher said it, the host (ultra right winger James Dobson) cut him off so that he could not elaborate.

 

[Machjo]

For years I have monitored right wing Christian professing radio shows. Only once have I ever heard a discussion on the subject of Jesus' instruction about giving away your money to the poor. As it was, when the preacher said it, the host (ultra right winger James Dobson) cut him off so that he could not elaborate.

I fully agree, and that's been my observation too, though I should clarify that there are always exceptions. Some do like to pick and choose from their scriptures and that applies to all religions.

 

[Cannuck]

Jesus said, sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Can't say I know of any Christians who obey that law.

It's not a law.

 

[petros]

Remember back in the day when they had co-ops?

 

[Machjo]

It's not a law.

Not in the legal sence, granted.

 

[Cannuck]

Not in the legal sence, granted.

Not in any sense.

 

[Machjo]

Remember back in the day when they had co-ops?

Still do, though more of them would be nice.