17 Dec 2014, 11:12 pm
17 Dec 2014, 11:48 pm
18 Dec 2014, 1:08 am
Exporting a status quo is not conducive to changing it. We aren't a monarchy and we certainly don't merit the servitude of the impoverished. You two have clearly never heard of gift economy. Why live in a world built on aggressive self-interest and bias towards traditions no one fully understands when a chain reaction of generosity could sustain the entire planet just like convection in a star.
Of course, fighting over shiny things until we're all radioactive dust is a perfectly good stimulus package too, if you measure prosperity in rems.
edit: My advance apologies in case bumping this thread snowballs into WWIII...
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
18 Dec 2014, 4:23 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
18 Dec 2014, 4:30 am
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2014, 6:58 am
Well, I think things will become considerably less polarized once Obama leaves office and the really crazy (and racist) folks lose interest in politics and go back to professional wrestling.
Beyond that, I'm not sure... In another post, I talked about an article I found on the development/history of the SNAP (food stamp) program.
In reaction, the government come up with a scheme to directly distribute this agricultural surplus to the hungry poor. However, this approach also garners much criticism from the business community in general, and grocery wholesalers/retailers in particular, for 'bypassing the customary channels of commerce.' The program is also criticized by social workers, etc. because of the social stigma attached to this form of commodity distribution.
So, new policy is written up by a group of grocery wholesalers/retailers and submitted to the government. With a bit of tweaking, the proposal becomes the Food Stamp program we all know and love--Basically, poor folks could 'buy' orange stamps that could be used to purchase any sort of food. Additionally, for each dollar of orange stamps purchased, the CONSUMER would receive a BONUS blue stamp good for $0.50 toward the purchase of select, surplus goods. These surplus goods usually consisted of various fresh fruits/veggies as well as eggs, pork, etc.
Left-leaning ideologues might criticize this process as capitalist interests twisting and corrupting a government program for their own, selfish gain.... But I don't see it that way at all.
In the old system, farmers benefited because the direct distribution scheme provided an outlet for their surplus goods. Poor people had a slight benefit because they did get a bit more food, at a cost of some personal dignity. BUT, the greater economy suffered because it was bypassed by the government, and the taxpayers suffer because their money was not being used for maximum benefit.
What's really happening here is just a free market/capitalist friendly reaction to an important social problem...
With this NEW solution, welfare recipients are transformed into consumers who actually get to participate in the greater economy in a positive, productive way. The greater economy benefits because there's now a whole new group of consumers spending money (Keynesian stimulus) and the taxpayer benefits it that their money is being invested much more wisely and for maximum effect. In short, MANY MORE groups benefit here.
That's a good practical solution, from a more rational, less blindly ideological time.
This is a great example of how different interest can come together, compromise, and come up with a solution to a problem that has wide ranging benefits for everyone. However, I just don't see something like this happening today. People just can't see past their own ideology and antipathy for the other side.
Ultimately, the status quo will remain in place as long as the majority can bear it. Once things become unbearable for too many people, things will change. The question is, how?
The less people have to lose, the more willing they are to blow s**t up. That's real danger of inequality in society. In the past, American has always given to lower classes just enough to keep them from blowing s**t up when things started getting dicey--reforms at the turn of the last century, the square deal, the new deal, the great society/civil rights reforms, etc.
Things are getting really bad for a lot of people again. I live in an area with the lowest unemployment and the highest rates of poverty in the country--currently 3.9% unemployment rate, yet the poverty rate is 18% and even worse for children. If not for programs like WIC and SNAP my working neighbors would have much less to eat. In spite of this, the right insists on cutting funding for SNAP, a program that feeds working families and puts job-creating money directly into the economy, even as they refuse raise taxes on the wealthy...
Eventually, my neighbors will get tired of working AND skipping meals so their children can eat. Something, someone has to give--either higher wages or higher taxes and benefits--all that money cannot stay at the top of the economy.
Just as in the past, we'll come together and fix the problems we can no longer ignore. If we don't eventually, the American problems will fix themselves. Just like French problems fixed themselves in the 18th century, and Russian problems fixed themselves in the 20th century...
PS
But somehow, I'm betting this isn't the 'status quo' the OP is concerned about, because the OP probably isn't hungry.
That we cannot agree on what the problems are, is a problem too.
18 Dec 2014, 7:27 am
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2014, 7:36 am
18 Dec 2014, 7:42 am
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2014, 8:12 am
18 Dec 2014, 8:37 am
18 Dec 2014, 9:03 am
18 Dec 2014, 9:27 am
18 Dec 2014, 9:33 am
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2014, 10:06 am
But we also need to act effectively.
I intern at a transitional housing project and also do rural outreach 3 Saturdays/month.
The rural outreach basically consists of setting up shop at a local High School and giving out groceries and personal hygiene products to needy families. Sure, it relieves a bit of misery, but I give the same stuff to the same people every goddamn Saturday.
In the transitional housing project I get to help people identify and FIX their problems. Show them how to access healthcare (usually psych meds), show them how to find support when stressed, find a job, manage money, KEEP a job, etc.
The outreach program feels good, and it's cheap--it pretty much totally runs on private donations and volunteers. But it doesn't really fix anything.
The transitional housing program changes people's lives in a real and fundamental way, but it costs about $15,000.00/person (from street to self-sufficiency) and it depends on block grants from the Feds. The program actually fixes problems, but it takes a big investment up front. And, it is in constant peril of being defunded because of political nonsense.
Help people figure out how to function in society. Don't just give them a pat on the shoulder and a box of stale macaroni.
18 Dec 2014, 10:14 am
