The Detroit Free Press is running a piece on a woman disabled by multiple sclerosis struggling to find a place to live. Her Social Security disability benefits aren't enough to enable her to pay rent, leaving her and her 16 year old daughter homeless.
"Failed by System" is an anodyne way to put it. They were failed by policymakers. Policymakers and hired staff are appointed by politicians. Politicians are elected by citizens. So the subjects of this story are failed by their fellow citizens.
ReplyDeleteThat's us, folks.
@ 10:46 I am wondering what you think "should have" happened? You are the policy maker now, what would you do and how would you pay for it?
ReplyDelete@10:46
ReplyDeleteWe have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The citizenry elect politicians because they lack the expertise to write policy in regard to the legislative branch, and lack expertise to carryout policy in regard to the executive branch. The citizenry are not responsible for politicians ineptitude, unless they ran on a platform of carrying out inept policy and the citizenry voted for them anyways.
tax more and spend more on social good. It's an incredibly easy way to go, and one that was extremely successful for us during our post-WWII boom from 1940s-1980s. Just go look at what top federal tax rates were back then, laugh at the reasons conservatives give for why we couldn't possibly come close to those rates nowadays, and do the basic math in your heads.
ReplyDeleteWE NEED TO TAX MORE AND SPEND MORE ON POOR AND NON-RICH FOLKS. Jesus, it isn't complicated if people can get over their weird pathological aversion to rich people paying more than 40 (or 50, or 60, or 70, or 80%) percent in taxes for the last few million of their incomes.
10:56 said,"The citizenry are not responsible for politicians ineptitude, unless they ran on a platform of carrying out inept policy and the citizenry voted for them anyways.""
ReplyDeleteHello wake up. Look around yourself!
During the 40s-80s families took the responsibility upon themselves to care for family. There are not enough rich people to tax for all the programs you want to support. What it comes down to is responsibility. If you do not want to be responsible for your family then why should the government be responsible.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it sounds like family members need to look for housing without steps. She has income, healthcare and food, why doesn't the family step up. I see no failure of the system, I see a failure of the family and individual. You have the right to fail, it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you.
@11:55
ReplyDeleteI'm awake, and look around myself on a regular basis. Name me the last time a politician that ran on well-explained, detailed policy changes they mean to implement once being elected and I'll agree the citizenry are to blame.
Policy doesn't win elections, it should, but it does not.
"During the 40s-80s families took the responsibility upon themselves to care for family."
ReplyDeleteAside from the privilege and lack of insight oozing from this comment (you do realize many, many people have no family or friends in positions to help them meaningfully, right? I'm guessing you are white and middle class or better and so are most all your family and friends) a large reason why folks could just take care of themselves gee golly! is that we had a better social safety net and higher wages (relative to inflation they are lower today) and benefits from employers back then.
Keep blaming the poor for being poor, let things stay the same, and wait for your turn to join their ranks.
@1:08
ReplyDeleteAMEN!
@1:08
ReplyDeleteShe has her SSDI, Child Support, Medicare, Food Stamps, and home healthcare assistance for a few hours every day, and is on the list for Section 8 housing assistance,what else are we supposed to provide!!!
Be so kind as to climb down of your white horse down here and look around, or at least put in a glass bellybutton so you can see out from where you have stuck your head.
11:15, no, we spend too damn much on foreign affairs instead of our own people. Too damn worried bout global warming or cooling or cows farting than to take care of our own people.
ReplyDelete@2:45
ReplyDeleteForeign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget, approximately half of which goes to paying for use of foreign government military facilities and paying for non-military personnel (embassy security, mercenaries, military contractors, etc.). In regard to "global warming or cooling or cows farting," I'm not sure if there has been any figures provided in regard to the cost of these issues in regard to the federal budget. I do know NASA provides climate change advocacy groups with climate data, but this data is collected to allow safe launch windows for spacecraft, not research climate change in and of itself. Regardless, NASA's total budget for 2016 was $19.5 billion in total, .49% of the federal budget and only a fraction of that is for maintenance of climate data satellite maintenance.
So no, eliminating foreign aid and halting spending which could even plausibly linked to global warming or cooling or cows farting would not allow us to end poverty.
3.80 million sq miles, 318.86 million people, we are a huge nation and population. I see no end to poverty. Poverty has been around since the first hunter gather bands. Some did better, some did worse. Short of alien invasion, I see nothing in the human animal that will lend it to a true egalitarian social structure. I figured out a long time ago that it is impossible to help everyone so you have to help the ones you can. For me that means regular donations to the food pantry and occasional assistance to friends and acquaintances that have a tragedy or sudden great need.
ReplyDeleteHow would a truly egalitarian look? One were everyone had what they needed? Food, shelter, healthcare, education. Would there be markets for all the junk we buy? Starbucks?
As we are all so frequently reminded here that there are a lot of JDs and such, point me to some reading material on how an egalitarian society would work. I need to educate myself.
2:58, how could applying 42.4 billion dollars of foreign aide benefit our own people? What kind of question is that?
ReplyDelete@4:37
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a question, it was a statement.
You said people were too focused on providing foreign aid, global warming, global cooling, and cow farts and this focus prevented us from taking care of our own people. I said these activities amount to less than 1% of the federal budget and therefore these activities do not significantly prevent us from devoting greater resources to fighting poverty. 42.4 billion would help fight poverty, but that wasn't what you said.
@2:45 if by foreign affairs you mean the military, you're absolutely right. If you think you can be "fiscally responsible", but you don't see that military spending is out of control, you are an imbecile. You should not vote because you have no powers of reasoning. Go back to the couch and leave it to people with some sense.
ReplyDeleteGood job..Thanks. It's really helpful :)
ReplyDeletePolitical News, Government News