Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Maybe something above the current poverty level. Whatever would keep the poor, including the working poor, from just scrapin' by.
 

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
Sure, it would be wonderful if we could meet the needs of all through churches. But these poor are our citizens, members of the same union as the rest of us. And, like the proverbial chain, we as a nation are only as strong as our weakest link.

That's one of the things I've been pondering in light of today's nostalgia on my blog. It hasn't been that long, folks, since we took these issues seriously and did our ding-dang best to provide for all. We need to protect the least among us, in whatever form. We remain the richest nation in the world. We live in the land of plenty (see my blog for photos that illustrate the richness our country has right here in Oklahoma!)

Maybe we need to bring back ideas like WPA and CCC. Maybe there will be those among us who will rise up with the vision of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Sargent Shriver. Aye, there's a role model for us. Give back to the society. Pay it forward. Contribute! Shriver started the Peace Corps, Job Corps, VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), Head Start and countless other service organizations that have changed the face of America.

Feed the poor. House the homeless. Educate the young. Take care of the sick. Find a cure for Alzheimer's, which is robbing the world of Shriver's brilliant mind.

Maybe then we'll have fewer people in prisons and a more productive and creative society for all.

And there you go. A political opinion from moi.

Now, let me follow that with a personal reflection.

This week, there have been seven murders in Oklahoma City, three of which form an arc within a mile of my own home.

The victim of one of these was a man I knew when I was actively serving in a downtown mission church weekly. His widow was shown on local news programs, describing how neighbors beat him to death, crushing his skull, when he came to her defense in an argument that escalated over a barking dog.

When I first knew them, both would come to the evening church service drunk (as did many in the congregation. They were all always welcome in God's house because that's where they needed to be.) He was her pimp. They lived in a nearby motel where she worked. They were trying desperately to earn enough money to move to a real house in a safe neighborhood.

Their life was not exemplary, in many ways. But they were faithful in their worship and to their faith community. They were there every Saturday night, making sure their friends were there and doing OK.

There came a time when I had to withdraw from that ministry because of personal safety concerns. I lost track of them until this week. But I know, from this story, that they thought they had been delivered into the land of milk and honey, because they were in a "safe" neighborhood. Right up until he was killed.

God rest his soul. God bless and protect her, and all of us.
 

AMEN!!!BROTHER..I agree we do way
more stupid things with our tax
dollars..
 

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'til there are no rich no more"
-- Ten Years After
(I'd Love to Change the World)
 

The problem with simply feeding the hungry and housing the homeless wheter it is by using tax dollars or it isn't, is that it creates even more dependency on the gubment, or charities and doesn't go a long way towards making us self suufficient. Oh, i know that isn't true of everyone who is on "relief" (I was once one of them) but, having lived in the ghetto surrounded by welfare cheats and lazy people who were 2nd and 3rd generation welfare receipients, i can say there is something to be said for the old adage, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." I don't think hand outs are the solution to the problem of the working poor. I do agree, however that Republicans often point to employment figures as proof that the economy is improving. I heard something on the radio today about that in fact. unfortunately. employment that doesn't pay the bills is not a good indication of an improving economy, but that's just how I see it.
 

Amen. The poor will always be with us, as someone said; on the other hand, the problem with government subsidies etc. isn't so much dependency (I mean, really, who cares? Ok, actually, I realize it's more complicated than that--dependence is probably neither psychically nor morally healthy--but I don't care much about the argument that some people will "take advantage." Sure they will. I'm willing to be taken advantage of, a little, in order to keep folks from starving. It's part of my human dignity, too)--whew, that was a long aside. What I meant to say was that the problem with subsidies is that, for a lot of folks, they're degrading, and they won't take 'em even if they're entitled to them. Which is admirable and all, but they and their kids ought not to have to suffer to maintain some dignity.

So I'd add to what you said, raise the minimum wage; support unionization; consider establishing caps on executive salaries (e.g., five times the average worker's wage, five times the lowest worker's wage, whatever); provide universal health insurance; require developers to build X units of low-income housing per Y units of higher-income housing; and so on. We regulate to protect industry, to encourage growth, and so on. Regulating to protect workers is something that, imho, we need to get back to believing in.
 

I think, to a certain degree, that being to proud to accept help is a good thing, if it motivates individuals to achieve more for themselves and/or their families. I know it was a big motivator in my family, because my parents were far too proud to accept commodities like the neighbors. We managed just fine, partly because my parents were determined that only the truly "needy" should accept public help.

The kind of help I advocate is much like Shriver worked for -- help up instead of a handout. A chance to establish a way to a better future, with a safety net in place for those who could not provide for themselves.
 

Bitch: (gawd i hate that word!) i like the idea of putting caps on executive salaries, but the rest of those suggestions would only serve to drive the costs of living higher. it's a domino effect, as it were, raise salaries, then the companies have to raise proces on their products to compensate for the higher payroll. same with free health care. and i really need health care. i have diabetes and a slipped disc in my back and i can't afford to fix it, nor can i afford health insurance. but just giving everyone health care for free would really drive the costs of living up. my idea is to limit the amount doctors can charge for their services. this would solve a few problems. first, affordable health care. second, doctors who are in the racket for the money only will leave the profession for more lucrative occupations and will leave only the doctors that really want to help people, thus cutting down on malpractice. Great exchange of ideas here. thank you.
 

A lot of people just call me "B."

I'm not an economist, so I can't say for sure that raising the minimum wage, for example, would drive up the cost of living. It seems intuitively true; and yet there are countries with much lower poverty rates than our own where that doesn't seem to be the case, so I suspect it's more complicated than that. I do know that, in fact, there are a number of studies that have shown that universal health care could cost *less* than what we pay now; the U.S. has one of the highest health care costs per capita in the entire world. This is, I believe, partly because those without insurance wait until their conditions are acute to get care (which costs a lot more); because, like insurance generally, spreading the cost across a larger number of people lowers it by diluting high-risk folks with the healthy majority; and I think a lot of it has to do with the importance of good health care for children and teenagers in creating life-long health (I don't, off the top of my head, remember how many kids in this country lack health care, but again, I think that among industrialized nations, we're pretty much at the bottom).

Of course, it's possible to do universal health care in a crappy way. From what I've heard, for example, Canadian health care ain't all that great--long wait times, poor coverage for things like mental health and dental work. I've had a friend describe it as a "bad HMO" and it certainly sounds worse than decent private insurance in the States. But I believe there are other models that function much better. And surely it would only increase productivity and profits to take the burden of providing insurance off of employers--it's a huge issue for small employers, this question of whether or not to offer health insurance, whether or not one can afford it, whether or not it's ethical not to offer it for one's employees, and so on. It's a big part of why a lot of employers won't allow employees to reach full-time hours, even if they want the work and the paychecks. It's a big part of the problem with employers like Wal-Mart. There's just no way that a national health care plan that every single person paid into and that went hand-in-hand with an emphasis on preventative care wouldn't be way cheaper than what we've got now.
 

Oh, btw. The problem with limiting what docs can charge--which a lot of HMOs and Medicaid and such already do--is that it really can make it difficult for them to cover costs. Malpractice insurance is really costly, for one thing. Also, when wages are restrained, there's a huge incentive to see as many patients as you can, quickly, and therefore to spend less time with each patient--which can really compromise the quality of care.

And btw, when I said the U.S. has one of the highest health care costs per capita in the entire world, I mighta misspoke. It could be highest as percentage of GNP or GDP or something. Like I said, I'm no economist, and I'm way too lazy to go look it up. But I do know we pay a lot more for health care, actually, than a lot of industrialized nations that have universal coverage.
 

Anon, re,
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'til there are no rich no more"
Beats the HELL out of
"Tax the rich, fight a war
'til there are no rich no more"

Don't misunderstand: I am not opposed to the war; I AM opposed to using it as an excuse to wipe out the Clinton-era surplus and to just ignore the fact that the deficit is back out of control. Since it is, and nobody seems to care, let's do some actual domestic good with the debt.

I knew self-sufficieny would come up. I DON'T CARE, for purposes of the fundamental argument, whether we teach people to fish. I say we have a moral obligation to offer them fish. Period. And shelter. Period. Here's what I believe: Someone who would just keep taking, um, free fish, and just accepting free shelter is already costing society in some way, either with crime, or laziness, and will always be a drain. I say the moral obligation to offer them fish and shelter trumps that. On dignity: I would neither cram fish down anyone's throat nor drag them out from under the bridge.

B, re, "We regulate to protect industry, to encourage growth, and so on. Regulating to protect workers is something that, imho, we need to get back to believing in."

That's music to my neo-New Dealer ears.

Mark, re cost of living.
Again, not germaine to the fundamental argument that we have a moral obligation involved. Besides, a little inflation is a good thing. As a Keynesian, I think the more money, the merrier, even if it's a little inflated. (I'm no economist either; but I do play one at work sometimes, relying on the 18 hours of econ that got me a minor in it at Oklahoma State back in the day.)
 

ER: By the way, i want to thank you for featuring my blog in your posted comment. Call me an egotist if you want but it really excites me to see my thoughts get some attention, even negative attention. I want to put a link to your site in my blog, but i don't know how. I read your blog all the time, and have come to the conclusion that you and I woud be pretty good friends if we lived nearer each other, possibly even drinking buddies. Except i don't drink. oh and "B": you said,
The problem with limiting what docs can charge--which a lot of HMOs and Medicaid and such already do--is that it really can make it difficult for them to cover costs. Malpractice insurance is really costly, for one thing. Also, when wages are restrained, there's a huge incentive to see as many patients as you can, quickly, and therefore to spend less time with each patient--which can really compromise the quality of care.
This is true. That is why the cap on salaries of medical personnell should extend to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the medical equipment manufacturers etc...and the prices they charge. If all these things were done, there would be no need for higher wages or higher prices for health care and, as I said, it would weed out the medical people who are only in the biz for the money. We already have assembly line health care. I have changed dr's a fw times for that very reason. There are doctors out there that really care and some that care only about the money.
 

Dude, re: "it really excites me to see my thoughts get some attention, even negative attention."

Me too. Thoughts stagnate alone. They must have others' thoughts to thrive.

I wish I could splain to you how to create links. Would someone with more patience and blogability care to help Mark out? TECH? You lurking? All I know is some of Bloggers' templates seem to make it easier than others.
 

ER,

Well I've been thinking of how I could defend my favorite talk show host, but I am not coming up with anything. I hate that I missed that show. I've read everyone's comments and one common thread tends to be that a certain portion of the "employed" population are not making it.

(Parenthesis: I saw the interview with Brad Pitt by Diane Sawyer the other night. I was impressed how little it would take to help aleviate poverty there. And when I heard Bono affirm it, it got me thinking about poverty and what to do about it)

I, too, am not an economist but I do not think that raising the minimum wage will help much. It may help a little. I guess one could go back to the Clinton era and see how poverty was helped when he raised it. I don't know. As far as my own solution. I can't necessarily disagree with anyone's comments here.

But why are some making it and some are not. A couple of years ago when I was in Sweden, one of the most socialist governments in the West, I saw poverty there also. So, even a country who has a huge government/social output for its citizens is still dealing with poverty.

And if I knew I could make under $X dollar amount and get a free house (or voucher) from the government, why would I want to work more and earn more money? I would question where the "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-boot-strap" mentality has gone?

But again who am I? If anything, I want to make sure my attitude to the less fortunate is in keeping with my Christianity. So, I'll admit I may be way off base. And where I am wrong I want to change, whether that means "being" a Repub or a Demo or a whatever.
 

For those who may be hoping to do some reading on this topic, here is a short book review (one to avoid):
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America by Barbara Ehrenreich (Owl Books, 2002)

This is an essay by a wealthy writer who spent time trying to fit in to low-income America.
Ehrenreich seems to have lost the focus of her project – was it an essay on being poor, or an attack on corporate America? Is it an expose of class discrepancy, or an attack on the people she worked for? Ehrenreich’s attempt to be “poor” is artifical at best. She doesn’t live the life of a poor person (no friends, no social support system mentioned.) Instead, it seems like she took a month’s vacation to be as miserable as possible and then complain about how it is management’s fault. I had higher hopes when I read the cover and am very disappointed with this effort. It could have been spectacular.
 

Just wanted to point out that there was a time when the minimum wage would have done a much better job of keeping people out of poverty--the "real value" of the minimum wage actually topped out in 1968 and has mostly been falling ever since. (See Figures 1 and 4 at http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage.)

The minimum wage has never been the only answer to poverty--just one part of a larger system. But the system can't provide a level playing field if it's various legs are sawed off at varrying lengths. There's something very wrong when someone working a full-time, minimum-wage job makes too much money to get food stamps and yet, despite all their efforts, can't feed their family, as happened to a good friend of mine several years back.
 

The problem with this idea is that it would be administered by the government, with the result that it would be both wasteful and ineffective. Our current welfare system, in spite of the noble sentiment upon which it was founded, has utterly failed in solving the problem of poverty. Expanding government assistance to the poor would mean pouring more money into a bloated and impotent bureaucracy that is manifestly unable to do the job it was consituted to do.
 

OK, Anon., one at a time.

"The problem with this idea is that it would be administered by the government, with the result that it would be both wasteful and ineffective."

ALL government is wasteful and ineffective to a degree. ALL of it.

"Our current welfare system, in spite of the noble sentiment upon which it was founded, has utterly failed in solving the problem of poverty."

The problem is thinking that poverty can be "solved." Nobody can solve poverty, or crime, or terrorism. The "War on Poverty" was baded on the premise that poverty could be eliminated. We know better now. We learned the same about the "War" on Drug, and we will eventually learn the same with the "War on Terrorism."

"Expanding government assistance to the poor would mean pouring more money into a bloated and impotent bureaucracy that is manifestly unable to do the job it was consituted to do."

How is that any different from any other government program. Again, though, the problem comes when one thinks of eliminating the problem.

The problems of poverty (or crime, or terrorism, which is just crime on a grand scale) will never be "eliminated" government or any other himan agent.

None of which dissuades me from this conviction: I my tax money is going to subsidize business, some of which fricking fail, and going to fund battles, some of which we will lose, then I by-God want more of it, and more of the ballooninbg deficit, to go to feed and house the dang poor, some of whom will remain poor.
 

And again, to sum up E.R.'s last statement in the most timeless, succinct way possible:

"The poor will always be with us."

It's how we deal with this ongoing situation that matters.
 

The argument that

1. All goverenment programs are wasteful and

2. Some government programs attempt to solve insoluble problems and that, therfore

3. We should pour money into a program we all agree won't work

is not convincing.
 

1) Life is not efficient. It consists of people, not machines.

2)Rather than using the word "problems," substitute the word "conditions." The word "problem" suggests something that can be solved or cured. Poverty cannot.

3) Depends on your moral compass. Many of us believe it is in all of our best interest to protect the weak. As a nation, we are a union. As a matter of fact, recite the Pledge of Alligance -- "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Indivisible means we cannot be divided. This is something we are starting to forget. We are allowing ourselves to become divided by class, something against which we rebelled at our founding.

If we want liberty, we must remember the principle of equality, in that we all should be treated with human dignity.

And if we want justice, we must limit the conditions which create the most suffering and desperation among our citizens, e.g., poverty, homelessness, hunger and illness.

We cannot afford NOT to work to correct these conditions, to the very best of our abilities.
 

I'm lurking! :) I've left a comment on Mark's blog asking him to send me an email so that I have his email address so that I can send him the code he needs.
 

Thanks for stoppin' by, Eldy. Hope to see more of you.

My point is more political than moral. I think it is immoral for this country to spend and waste so much money on so mich BS and NOT feed and house people. Period. Again, if someone would simply live on the dole, forever, then they alreqdy are, and will continue to be, a drag on society. Might as well feed 'em.
 

Let's not forget this point about those who want to run the government as a business: Sure, let's run it like Enron, Tyco, MCI ... Or how about running it like those defense contractors who bill us for $600 hammers? As for all the Republican knee-jerks out there, don't you think it's strange how Republicans blame the government for $600 hammers? Those kinds of abuses were discovered by the federal inspectors general system, which seeks out fraud and corruption. It's not that the Gubment has wasted your tax dollars by buying expensive parts; it's that private companies have engaged in fraud against American taxpayers by trying to hoodwink us with overinflated charges. How can you swallow your party's upside-down propaganda? Wake up!
 

As long I don't have to pay for it, feed them all. I don't care. Just don't raise my taxes!!