sda2.jpg

May 24, 2010

It's Not A Secret

Via Kathy Shaidle;

There’s an ugly secret of global poverty, one rarely acknowledged by aid groups or U.N. reports. It’s a blunt truth that is politically incorrect, heartbreaking, frustrating and ubiquitous:

It’s that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households.

It's not an "unacknowledged truth", either.

The poverty racket is an intentional lie, refined and perpetuated by that certain political class and their enablers in the gated-community community.

It's why those of us who live modest lifestyles, who rub shoulders with the dysfunctional poor, have so little sympathy for them. They're not victims of circumstance. They're creatures of entitlement.

You see - this is what I love about blogging. You don't need to write for the New York Times to get blunt truths into the newspaper.

Posted by Kate at May 24, 2010 9:53 AM
Comments

Good post. If poverty is the cause of crime, then why are most poor people as honest as anyone else and how do we explain people like Michael Millken and other wealthy people caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Posted by: bob c at May 24, 2010 10:12 AM

Poverty . .. the self-inflicted social status.

Posted by: Fred at May 24, 2010 10:27 AM

GR-8 post, Kate, because so true and so little exposed because of all the PC crap that poses as "compassion" and "tolerance."

Why should any of us tolerate sloth and depravity, especially when the rest of us have to pay for the consequences, over and over again -- either here or in the Third World?

bob c: "If poverty is the cause of crime, then why are most poor people as honest as anyone else ...?"

Another dirty little secret, much shushed up by baby mamas and their government/poverty worker allies, is that it's not poverty that has a high correlation to a life of crime, it's fatherless homes. Something like 80% of inmates in North American prisons come from single-mom homes.

But, we're not allowed to have this discussion in Canada's "polite" -- aka tolerant, open, diversity-loving -- public square.

Thank G*d for SDA.

Posted by: batb at May 24, 2010 10:43 AM

The truth hurts; but it still remains the truth.

I have lived it first hand when my late wife gambled away two businesses, our home, insurance policies, and savings while I was working overseas. I spent four months at the Sally-Anne until I got my life back together. During that time I watched, not only street people, but men and women with families work just long enough to extend their stay and then it was booze or crack parties until they got close enough to eviction time to go find another day job to get back on the freebie system. In that four month period, and with the dozens of people who passed through, only two of us were intent on getting on with our lives...and did.

Posted by: Powell Lucas at May 24, 2010 11:03 AM

I don't think your 2008 comments were "hyperbolic" at all, Kate. Why say they were when you know damn well that they weren't?

Posted by: RSP at May 24, 2010 11:10 AM

Paul Theroux's "Dark Star" says it best.

Posted by: Mazzuchelli at May 24, 2010 11:16 AM

I read a few of the comments on Kristof's blog and found them to be surprisingly supportive. A few more columns like his Sunday effort and even the nuanced thinkers who follow the NYT will come around. They're all basically herd animals anyway.

Posted by: RSP at May 24, 2010 11:20 AM

Kate, you go girl!

Posted by: tomax7 at May 24, 2010 11:24 AM

Very interesting post and just not something I had ever thought about that particular light. It makes sense, most people are in the lower economic brackets because they can't or won't spend their money in ways that will allow them to get ahead.

When I look at some of my own family members in this light, it's true, they piss their money away on things they think they need or should have because everyone else does. Not a moments thought about saving any extra money to get them through rough times or having some money set aside to invest in something that might get them out of the financial rut they are in, not a thought.

Again as I think about things in this light I see that I am just as big a contributor to this sense of entitlement as the government is, I give I guess because it’s easier than confronting them on their problem of the month. The next time one of them comes over to say hello and borrow some money with their new cell phone, designer whatevers and freshly done nails they are about to get a wake up call. Thanks Kate and Kathy.

Posted by: Western Canadian at May 24, 2010 11:28 AM

I don't think your 2008 comments were "hyperbolic" at all, Kate.

Neither did I. Local media had a different opinion.

Posted by: Kate at May 24, 2010 11:34 AM

"...who rub shoulders with the dysfunctional poor, have so little sympathy for them"

Dysfunctional is the distinction. My lefty NDP supporting parents always attributed their political leanings with growing up in rural Sask among some very poor & struggling families almost 60 years ago. Their beliefs were challenged after I sold them my central Winnipeg rental property at Isabel & Pacific ave. (yes that was evil of me)

After 6 months my exhausted father rhetorically asked:
"Why do they all insist on moving every 2-3 months?"
"Why do they leave half their belongings and all their furniture behind when they move!"
"Why do they have better cable service than we do?"
"Why is the street often lined with taxis, unloading 24s?"
"Instead of opening the windows to cool the place off, why didn't they just turn down the F-ing thermostat!!"

The experience didn't cure them, but perhaps did steer them to the right a little.

Posted by: ChrisinMB at May 24, 2010 12:20 PM

Alberta's Metis Urban Housing: same breed of tattooed cell packing, coked up "poor".
Home schooled, no less!

Posted by: eastern paul at May 24, 2010 12:26 PM

"It's why those of us who live modest lifestyles, who rub shoulders with the dysfunctional poor, have so little sympathy for them"

A neighbor of mine summed up this feeling when he and my parents were discussing the latest brawl between the neighborhood drunks. He said, "I was kinda hoping that one would end up in Memory Gardens Cemetery and the other in jail so we would be rid of both of them." My biggest complaint against the gated-community community is that in their blind rush to help the dysfunctional poor they are harming the working poor. Programs like reduced penalties for crime just returns the criminals to the street faster, making it more difficult for the non-criminal poor to successfully raise their families.

I used to think education was the key to poverty reduction. Now, I'm not so sure. If the Big Brains answer to STD and pregnancy is along the lines of Ontario's sex education curriculum then I suppose their answer to drug related diseases will be a mandatory course on washing needles and shooting up properly. This progressive attitude combined with reduced emphasis on core subject in poor neighborhoods and the promotion of unearned grades, social passing and "self-esteem" building does not increase the odds of poverty reduction.

Posted by: LC Bennett at May 24, 2010 12:30 PM

The "poor" want to feel rich, so they spend their money on things that make them feel like they are in a wonderful democracy, doing the things of the rich and famous. They spend money on cell phones, just like the "rich" and the women folk get the menfolk out of their hair by sending them out of the house, even if the lure is the local watering hole. Better that then having them at home, moping and complaining about not having a job, or a good enough job. The men don't mind, they get to drink and spend time with their comrades solving the world's problems.

Posted by: glacierman at May 24, 2010 12:34 PM

So they are peeved about households spending money on wine and cigarettes. Much like how the liberals in Canada seethe about your beer and popcorn. Not happy until everyone is not happy.

Posted by: wuberman at May 24, 2010 12:34 PM

Poverty has nothing to do with a lack of money.
More a lack of imagination, I've always felt.
A lack of character.

A trite example: the fate of lottery winners from the lower rungs.

AND the state's (Lib, Con, NDP, Wild Rose Alliance!) job#1 is to ensure this steady, inexorable decline in character, which leads to povery and dependency and the infinite expansion of the glorious STATE.
/anarchism.

Nice to see the NYT explaining what I knew as a child of 120 hr/week small business parents in Atlantic Canada.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at May 24, 2010 12:34 PM

Creatures of entitlement? I don't think so. This class of people pre-dates the welfare state. Inner-city problems are nothing new, just google "Gin Lane". The real problem most of these people have is substance abuse, and brain damage. Many of them become addicted in the womb, or suffer incurable fetal alcohol poisoning.

Creatures of entitlement, in my mind, look a lot like Ms Shaidle, who spent a good part of her writing career collecting federal grants. Or perhaps growing up in a province that's received transfer payments up until a year ago, in a rural community that thrives on agricultural subsidies.

Sorry girls, but you don't score all that high, when it comes to carrying your own weight.

Posted by: dp at May 24, 2010 12:44 PM

Powell Lucas
Yeah! the problem is that here in the land of plenty we are loath to have people starve.
You perhaps would not be surprised that the "case workers" treat that minority different. Some are very suportive...most are vindictive....the attitude is that the upwardly mobile are "working the system".

Posted by: sasquatch at May 24, 2010 1:01 PM

When people get on the ag. subsidies, I have to take exception. There is a cheap food policy right from the time producers were forced to subsidize Britain during the war. Canadians, as a whole, didn't take part in that.

Anyway, I'll take the ag. subsidy complaint seriously just as soon as said complainers put their kids in private schools, pay their own medical costs, etc.

Posted by: ol hoss at May 24, 2010 1:15 PM

95% of poverty is a chosen field of endeavor

Victims or Volunteers?

If I were King...

I'd start with the immediate removal of cell phones from all welfare recipients...then satellite tv...then all parking lots at subsidized housing projects...I would give them bus passes and cooking lessons...and limit all to a maximum of 52 weeks of welfare in a ten year period.....

Posted by: Cappy at May 24, 2010 2:26 PM

Mazzuchelli I agree with Dark Star. I had a clue as to what the aid groups were like. The surprise was with the expectation of the people you SHOULD do something (everything) for them. Not only do you have to build it you have to prevent it becoming a toilet.

Posted by: Speedy at May 24, 2010 2:28 PM

The poor are just another tool for progressives to use in their thirst for total control while justifying building up more and more big government. Burdening the capitalist system by massive taxation while ignoring the corruption, theft, and damage to society involved in their programs is something they find helpful.

When a relative moved his business from Montreal to Toronto his associates roped him into the "Delivering Christmas hampers to the poor" pc pr song and dance. When he did his delivery at the assigned address, he was quickly ushered into the public housing kitchen filled with new appliances where he placed his burden on the kitchen table and was then sent on his way without a word from the lady of the house. Her spouse(?) in the living room, drinking beer and smoking cigarettes, was too engrossed in the action on his colour tv to say anything as well. This was way back when because his punch line was: "A colour tv? Sh*t, I can't afford a colour tv!"

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at May 24, 2010 2:30 PM

The American public is starting to realize that Obama is trying to put on his own production of "Greece" and that tax payers, who make up a miniscule portion of the American population, will be paying for and staring in that production. “Hopelessly Devoted to You”, “Those Magic Changes” and “Born to Hand Jive” will no doubt be the theme songs from his next presidential campaign.

Posted by: EyesWideShut at May 24, 2010 2:42 PM

A lot of money slips through the fingers of the so called poor in N.America. They stay poor because they don't spend very much of that money wisely. Most of it is spent on expensive habits of short term instant gratification, and expensive consumables and disposables in an ongoing competition for perceived status within the urban community of crowded poor around them. Poor is more of a lifestyle choice than an economic condition.

Poor do reasonably well if dispersed in agrarian communities mostly spending time feeding themselves growing food. Crowd them together in sprawling urban slums where they can't grow food to feed themselves, like 50% of the world's growing population, and one gets an unsustainable situation that's only getting worse.

Posted by: John Galt at May 24, 2010 2:49 PM

I'll take the ag subsidy seriously when dp does some arithmetic and tells me how the hay farmer pays the interest on his farm mortgage, and the loan that bought the $200k tractor, and the $60k bailer, and a few other things (like buildings, gas, power, what have you) at $25 per big round bale.

Always remembering that without Mr. Hay farmer there ain't no Big Macs nor milk to go with your cookies. I'll also note there's damn few farmers spending all their money on hookers, crack and booze.

On the subject of Kate's article, there are many companies in Arizona that sell custom wheels. Everybody gotta have their rims, right?

When you go to the crappier parts of Mesa, say 'round about Country Club Dr. or Mesa Blvd, the cars get crappy too. We're talking mid 1980's GM products with 200,000+ miles on 'em.

But they all have RIMS, baby. We are talking 30" donks with 2" sidewall Pirellis. Check it: http://customwheel.com/custom_wheels/product_info.php/products_id/1687

And the stores that sell wheels in the crappy neighborhood have this sign out front: "Rims! Rent to own."

This has become a subject of some hilarity here at Chez Phantom.

Big screen TV sales also remain brisk, despite the 20% unemployment and record high house foreclosure rate.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 24, 2010 2:49 PM

Removing addictions and implanting impulse control would eliminate most 'poverty' in North America.

That being said there is no sin in being poor. It is not a disease that must be eradicated.

A simple rule in life: Never remove responsibility from the responsible. Never encourage irresponsibility amongst the irresponsible. Take responsibility only for those who are incapable of being responsible.

Posted by: Joe at May 24, 2010 3:00 PM

The predictors of poverty have remained the same regardless of all the social engineering program created - because these programs fail to address the predictors.

1. Not finishing high school (and failing to get something beyond high school even if it is only a 1 year office admin certificate).

2. Not entering into a long-term stable relationship (dare I say marriage) preferably to someone who has also at least finished high school.

3. Having a child before finishing high school and entering into a long-term stable relationship.

Do any one of these things and you increase your chances of becoming poor and remaining poor. Do all three and you will definitely be poor regardless of what the government gives you.

BUT - all the social engineering programs fail to drive these points home because they are considered to be a 'moral issue'. Poppycock!

Posted by: Maureen at May 24, 2010 3:05 PM

You know on Welfare Cheque Day that there will be line ups to get on the VLT machines.

Posted by: Yogi at May 24, 2010 3:17 PM

dp: please provide the date of my last arts council grant, and the amount.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 24, 2010 3:26 PM

If there were no poor people think of how many social workers would be unemployed. Some of the poor require 2-3 full time government staff to ensure that they stay out of trouble.

I've started taking a hard line with people now. When I get disability forms to be filled in I ask people "Are you sure you want to make a career of being a professional victim for the rest of your life?". I've had patients that have thought about it and not gone that route and started working.

The solution to the problem is to stop rewarding bad behavior. I've seen patients who come in wanting welfare forms signed because they are "drug addicts". I'm not going to facilitate their lifestyle and let them know that.

Seeing as it would probably be unpopular to let people starve in the streets (and dangerous in a country that doesn't allow concealed carry), welfare should be contingent on people changing their behavior. None of this throwing money at people while they live in cities but instead the destitute should be taken to remote camps in the NWT where they will have a warm place to sleep and food and books, but no TV, no phones and lots of work to keep them busy. They would be free to leave anytime but no support would be provided to them if they moved south. Impulse control disorders can be treated and I'm sure that a spartan living environment would make the treatments more effective.

My experience has been that trying to change peoples behaviors while they live in an environment that facilitates those behaviors is useless. That's why places like East Hastings in Vancouver will never change although once people leave that environment they can change.

Posted by: loki at May 24, 2010 3:26 PM

"please provide the date of my last arts council grant, and the amount"

Oh boy, a contest! What will I win? Rims and a big screen tv I hope!

Ontario Arts Council 1999-2000 Shaidle, Kathy, Toronto, $1500

Toronto Arts Council 1999 Level Two Grants: $4,500 each Kathy Shaidle

Posted by: poor person at May 24, 2010 4:41 PM

Wow Poor Person, I got what amounts to the equivalent of a $6000 rebate for a lifetime of taxes, over eleven years ago. wow!

Imagine if you took all that time, energy and obsession on me, and put it towards becoming as successful as I am!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 24, 2010 5:54 PM

taking an "ARTS" coarse is some what like trying to wipe yer arse with wet toilet papers

most people in NA wouldn't know what POOR is, they mistaken stupid for poor, as has been noted in different ways


solution, just cut about 80% of all, and all types, of welfare, and cut 100% of arts coarse grants

Posted by: GYM at May 24, 2010 6:09 PM

As much as the recipients may bear a responsibility....I hold that the administrators of relief bear some responsibility.
I was at an associate's yard repairing (sharpening) his chainsaw when his "case worker" "dropped in". He had earlier sought assistance for fuel etc.
She was loath to speak in my hearing, but he insisted----she became very nervous...but then blurted out that not only his request was denied, but his benefits were stopped and he would be charged with defrauding the programme.
Her reasoning:
Nobody heated with wood...hence he was self employed selling fire-wood for fire places...his small stack of split wood(1/2 a cord) was evidence of that.
She advised him to sell his chain-saw, hire a lawyer.....
She was a recent graduate of some social services course and originated in the GTA.
We went and had a chat with her supervisor, who although sympathetic couldn't over-rule her....she was politically connected.
The Sally-Ann provided fuel and moral support.
She lost in court.

Posted by: sasquatch at May 24, 2010 6:10 PM

Wow! Here I thought this was going to be just another thread, but deep in the bowels is the assertion that Kathy Shaidle took $6000 in Ontario and Toronto Arts Council grants in 1999 and 2000!

I'm shocked!

In future I hope to see Kathy refer to welfare recipients as "my fellows on the dole". ;-)

But seriously,there are very few people who haven't had some form of help from either a government agency or a friend or relative. Many just don't acknowledge it.

My beef is with those who make it a life's work to stay off the employment rolls,like the fine fellow down the street from me.He's in his early forties, reasonably fit and reasonably articulate,yet he's been on welfare for years.

One day recently I gave him a ride downtown. In conversation he mentioned that he "just can't do do that nine-to-five thing". So,he sits on welfare,and deals in minor amounts of drugs to supplement his income.

And no, don't tell me to report him to the police,they already told me they aren't interested
in him,and I don't relish having my vehicle "keyed" or my tires slashed if I was to rat him out.

A lot of the reason for poverty is just plain laziness. Some people just don't want the hassle of getting up early every morning and putting in a hard days work,so we enable them with welfare and all kinds of well meaning training courses that teach them how to further use the system to their advantage.

And there are thousands of civil servants involved in the poverty industry in our Province,yet the numbers of poor and unemployed never seem to improve. Hm.

Posted by: dmorris at May 24, 2010 6:58 PM

Don't forget all the crazy people they have "freed" from institutions that can't live in the real World. They gave them the right to starve or go insane & kill people.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at May 24, 2010 6:58 PM

It's an error to correlate welfare with arts or other grants.

Yes, both derive their money from the taxpayer, but welfare is a socialist action. It takes money from someone who works and gives it to someone who doesn't work, as a form of 'equalization'.

An arts or other grant is a capitalist action. It is a communal action of rewarding merit, of rewarding someone who IS working, in some art or other activity.

The two types of government funds have nothing to do with each other. So, I suggest that those who are crowing that Kathy Shaidle received an Arts Council Grant - should try to 'think' rather than rant. The Grant is a reward for work done, not given for not working.

As for the civil service who live off the taxpayer and allot welfare etc - that's not work; that's just a parasitic attachment on the taxpayer.

Posted by: ET at May 24, 2010 7:41 PM

actually, mouth, I wrote about these grants in my second book, and have mentioned them in numerous articles.

Like all leftists, due to your own ignorance, you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists. That $ information is public knowledge through arts council web sites, as evidenced by that other anonymous coward's ability to locate the information.

Other than tattooing the $ figures on my forehead, what would you consider sufficiently transparent?

You are a very stupid person. (See leftist, above).

Unlike you and your friends, everything I have ever written was published using my full, real name. I am an open book. Which is ironic, given your accusations of secrecy.

Do try harder next time, dear. Maybe one day you'll be as successful as I am. But I doubt it. You clearly don't have the nimblemindedness. And envy is not an attractive trait.

ET's explanation is actually one I never thought of before. Nicely put.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 24, 2010 8:08 PM

If Kathy proposed making a 300-metre long flying bamboo banana, then ran to South America with $150000, that would be a more worthy grants scandal. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_Banana_Over_Texas

Posted by: ChrisinMB at May 24, 2010 8:51 PM

"An arts or other grant is a capitalist action."

It may be capitalist, but it sure isn't entrepreneurial.

Posted by: ol hoss at May 24, 2010 9:14 PM

It makes me very angry with learned people that blame crime on poverty.The poverty of today is not poverty.The poverty of yesterday was poverty.Honest people that lived in huts with dirt floors and absolutely no conveniences,but their homes were clean and their children went on to be successful in their endevours.I remember my cousin that had an alcoholic husband and no money that raised her children so that one became a lawyer and the rest to be successful in their own endevours.The poverty of today is where mothers put their children in day care,paid for by social services,and then go not to work,but to the local bingo or watering hole.

Posted by: spike 1 at May 24, 2010 9:35 PM

Yes, Kathy Shaidle received an Arts Council grant... and went and wrote something for them.

Normally one calls that kind of transaction "work for hire". That's where somebody gives you money, and then you do something they asked you to do.

Hard concept for your Lefty to grasp, eh?

Now, contrast "work for hire" with "welfare". Welfare is Nanny Government giving you juuuuust enough money to eat for the month, and maybe pay the rent on your shared room. Money which you spend on rent-to-own dubs for your '87 Chevy POS, 'cause chicks dig the dubs.

You pay the rent on the rims instead of on room and board, because the government won't bother you for defrauding them, but the wheel rim guy will come around and take your car.

The wheel rim guy has experience working with The Poor. He knows you can get more out of a deadbeat rim thief with a gun and a smile than you can with just a smile.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 24, 2010 9:48 PM

What's the matter mouthy? Somebody zing you on a nerve? Big-screen TV comment hit a little close to home, did it?

I bet you know a bunch of people with a 52" Sony, at least one baby and zero baby food in the house. Friends or relatives, mouthy?

Posted by: The Phantom at May 24, 2010 10:07 PM

ol hoss, not all capitalist work is entrepreneurial, so what's your point?

An arts grant, is given for innovative and individual WORK, and is merit based. Do you have a problem with work and merit?

mouth/bleet - try to think before you bleet. Kathy Shaidle was asking dp to provide some facts because he was accusing her of 'a good part of her writing career' '...collecting federal grants'. This is untrue, both in length of time and in the fact that these were not federal grants.

But that's completely irrelevant. What is astonishing is that people like mouth, dp, ol hoss, are claiming that work done for a government is equivalent to no-work.

Kindly remember that police, firemen, hospitals, teachers, are all working and paid for by the taxpayer. The money they receive is for work done and work to be done; that's capitalism.

The same situation applies to arts grants. The awards are based on merit - not lack of merit and lack of abilty and lack of skills and no work - which is the basis for welfare. But merit and work; the applicant has to show evidence of work done, it's peer reviewed, and the grant is given. It's an honour! It's not a sign of incompetence and poverty, but of competence and ability!

Posted by: ET at May 24, 2010 10:15 PM

Stupid girls who have sex with the little boys who run away are the root cause of poverty.

Posted by: Philanthropist at May 24, 2010 10:24 PM

"An arts grant, is given for innovative and individual WORK, and is merit based. Do you have a problem with work and merit?"

Merit based on whose opinion? Certainly not those forced to pay for it.

Posted by: ol hoss at May 24, 2010 10:44 PM

There is a cheap food policy right from the time producers were forced to subsidize Britain during the war. Canadians, as a whole, didn't take part in that.
Anyway, I'll take the ag. subsidy complaint seriously just as soon as said complainers put their kids in private schools, pay their own medical costs, etc.

Except food isn't cheap, nor is there a cheap food policy. In fact, the only ag policy that affects price (supply management) increases food costs.
I'm not sure how public heathcare and education justifies being a cradle to grave, freeloading rural conservative welfare bum, but hoss clearly demonstrates conservatism is the hypocrisy that knows no shame.

Posted by: phil at May 24, 2010 11:08 PM

The whole mess makes me so mad.
Thanks to some lazy bums, those who truly are in need don't get the help they should have.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at May 24, 2010 11:58 PM

A recent story in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix quoted the Manager of the grocery store on Broadway(yuppie east side). He said that they have regulars who come in daily and steal large quantities of meat. Enough that they could be selling the meat out of the back of a truck.

The store employees don't stop them and the police only sometimes respond.

That east side area's only grocery store isn't going to last long at that rate. The students will have to take the bus for a couple of miles down 8th St. to supermarket alley.

I remember the 'old days' when every supermarket had it's own butcher wearing a belt holster of sharp knives. He cut up the meat and packaged it in the store. If someone had tried to steal his meat they'd have ended up on the cold cut tray.

Posted by: Larry at May 25, 2010 12:30 AM

Except food isn't cheap, nor is there a cheap food policy.

On average food costs about 1/8 your take home pay. Like I said, cheap.

Posted by: ol hoss at May 25, 2010 12:41 AM

I'll remind you folks that this isn't a chat forum - take your personal bickering elsewhere.

Posted by: Kate at May 25, 2010 12:46 AM

If one were to be poor, the U. S. is the only way to go. Did you see the Katrina exodus in New Orleans. We have the fattest poor people in the history of time. I suspect some of my neighbors in the little town north of here have lower incomes than the folks wading to the stadium. Still, they work and manage their resources to the extent they keep their bungalows up and drive reasonably fit vehicles. They pay close attention to their kids' education and participate at school events. People have choices with the end result being the level of dignity in which they choose to live.

Posted by: Mazzuchelli at May 25, 2010 1:25 PM

My parents grew in the tail-end of an economic depression and the Second World War. They remember things like ration books and sugar in Hessian bags. Yet, they went to school, ate three times a day (not grand meals, mind) and did their chores. How is it that First World dwellers lack this ability to survive?
As Jesus said, the poor we will always have with us and judge not, ect. There will always be people who fall through the cracks and people who make tremendously stupid mistakes. How they do not seek a launchpad to a better life, I don't know.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at May 25, 2010 2:37 PM

Poverty is a complex game and is often a case of some wealthy crooks stealing indirectly from others of wealth.

Payday loan sharks in BC charge as much as 524% interest. [I have documents]. The legislATED LIMIT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 23%.

There will always be persons of low understanding or of mental injury who are unable to resist these loans.

Before you cheer on and say they deserve their fate, consider the apartment owner who fails to get his rent to meet mortgage obligations.

A case of the rich defrauding the rich.

The King of all frauds is the firm Goldman Sachs. They sell toxic derivatives to one group and hedges against that same paper to another group.

Goldman also showed PIGS how to hide their massive over spending. Now Portugal, Italy,Greece, Spain, Ireland and Iceland must pay the penalties.

Thank you Goldman Sachs.

We all hate the furer, but he was partly correct...eh?

Posted by: TG at May 25, 2010 8:00 PM

The poor will always be there.

Does government manage that fact efficiently?

Direct deposit for rent and hydro, vouchers for groceries and very little money for booze, pizza and taxi.

Management and prevention are the two routes to less poverty.

Posted by: TG at May 25, 2010 8:11 PM

I recently moved into a house and, of course, had to sign up for new service for telephone, utilities, garbage, and change my address with the DMV. One thing that immediately jumped out at me is the omnipresent "lifeline" or "circuit breaker" programs for the "poor".

It's not enough that they pay no income taxes at all, are net recipients of government aid, and consume public goods at above average levels. They also pay nearly NOTHING for utilities, garbage, automobile registration and fees, telephone, food, etc. Of course, this doesn't stop them from owning cell phones, having multiple televisions, and a car with vanity plates.

Yes, if you're poor you qualify for lower car registration fees but can OPT to pay more for vanity plates. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that? Bueller?

Posted by: POWinCA at May 26, 2010 5:52 AM

I recently moved into a house and, of course, had to sign up for new service for telephone, utilities, garbage, and change my address with the DMV. One thing that immediately jumped out at me is the omnipresent "lifeline" or "circuit breaker" programs for the "poor".

It's not enough that they pay no income taxes at all, are net recipients of government aid, and consume public goods at above average levels. They also pay nearly NOTHING for utilities, garbage, automobile registration and fees, telephone, food, etc. Of course, this doesn't stop them from owning cell phones, having multiple televisions, and a car with vanity plates.

Yes, if you're poor you qualify for lower car registration fees but can OPT to pay more for vanity plates. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that? Bueller?

Posted by: POWinCA at May 26, 2010 5:54 AM
Site
Meter