should we give money to the poor?

the answer is yes, we should practice charity and love and generosity.

the better question than 'should we give money to the poor' is 'should we give all the money and opportunities to the elite?'

[Nono]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs the better question than 'should we give money to the poor' is 'should we give all the money and opportunities to the elite?'

Very well put. They may have their hands on it, but one can legitimately ask whether all of it really belongs to them.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, the better question than 'should we give money to the poor' is 'should we give all the money and opportunities to the elite?' [/b]

Yes. Awsome put.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by m5lange1, You control it. So Pizza and blankets if you want. Or perhaps donate your own time instead of cash.

I think it depends on the circumstances. Some years ago I used to take about 10-12 cups of coffee and a couple of dozen donuts about twice a week in the Winter to some homeless guys who lived by the railroad tracks in Wilmington. Often I would take my 12 year old Son and we'd just roll up and hand the stuff out.

Not only did these guys act as if I was handing them the keys to a new car, my kid also got a perspective on the poor and homeless he wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
I didn't have a lot of money back then but it made me feel good and I think it did my kid a lot of good too.

(I'm not patting myself on the back here. Just showing how positive a thing giving can be when you do it yourself for your own reasons.)

[Waychel]

I can think of many logical methods of social reform at the benefit of the poor that make a great deal of more sense than giving them large sums of money to spend on their other recreational activities such as meth labs. LOL...

[castille]

The real question is:

Those who claim to be generous, are you just throwing a few dollars at the beggars on the street, or are you actually spending your time and energy helping them?


Speaking of which, in China 90% of beggars are actually controlled by the Triads (the Chinese mafia). The Triads would usually get a stray kid off the street, maybe beat him a bit (to make him a sorry site), and put him on the street to beg for money. At the end of the day the kid has to give all the money to the triads and keep a few cents.

[Nono]

Originally posted by castille ... in China 90% of beggars are actually controlled by the Triads ...

Did you call up the Ministry of Statistics for that one? :)

OK, the triads are a great Chinese institution. But all societies have similar groups, and they certainly thrive on poverty.

In the affluent country where I live, a guy was rescued from the streets this past week: a legless Slovak who had had his passport stolen and been put out on the sidewalk by the thieves to beg, having to hand over his daily earnings to his 'protectors'. I tell ya.

Which goes to show that alms-giving isn't the solution.

[Lava]

I believe charity is one of the components of a happy and successful life. I think Scribbler's post helps illustrate that.

The poor come in all sorts of course. There are those honest and trying to sort things out, there are drug addicts, there are those with good minds, and idiots and mentally ill, all sorts. Some can be helped to a better life, some will never do ok, so much so that they will always need help.

Lava

[Nono]

Originally posted by Scribbler ... it made me feel good ... I'm not patting myself on the back here. Just showing how positive a thing giving can be when you do it yourself for your own reasons.

More power to you -- most people would drive out of their way in order not to have to perceive that the homeless exist.

By your own account, at least part of your motivation was to ease your conscience. And the guys benefited from a nice treat and the knowledge that some people do care.

But charity is a bandaid. While I'm not claiming that there's an absolute cure for poverty, enough experience has been gained over the last half-century in Europe and North America (and some of the Asian Tigers as well) to show that wealth can be shifted around in society in a targeted manner that addresses the roots of the problem. Yes, I'm talking Tax and Spend (shock! horror!) but as an investment, not just throwing money at the problem.

Unfortunately, we're all being sung the Neoliberal Lullaby these days: they're poor because they're lazy; amassing wealth is virtuous (speaking of China); your wealth will "trickle down"; etc. Well, bullshit.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Lava Some can be helped to a better life, some will never do ok, so much so that they will always need help.

Fair enough. There's plenty of scope for working with the first category.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono, Which goes to show that alms-giving isn't the solution.

it doesnt show anything of the sort.

[Nono]

It follows that you're saying alms-giving is the solution (or let's say the best available). Care to explain how that works?

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono, But charity is a bandaid. While I'm not claiming that there's an absolute cure for poverty, enough experience has been gained over the last half-century in Europe and North America (and some of the Asian Tigers as well) to show that wealth can be shifted around in society in a targeted manner that addresses the roots of the problem. Yes, I'm talking Tax and Spend (shock! horror!) but as an investment, not just throwing money at the problem.

Charity is what keeps many of those people alive actually. Its that simple. There is an underclass of people so messed up they really cant sort out their own problems, even to the extent of basics like food and shelter.

People who call them lazy often dont get that - though is true some at least are there from laziness.

Here in Europe we've addressed the problem by state mandated handouts. If you dont work you get about 55 a week (about 75usd) to live on plus a small room paid for as well. Too much money IMO, but better than folks having nothing.

As for solving the problem any other way, I dont thnik you can. There is a range of reasons why people are where they are, and mental problems and idiocy are nearly insoluble. At best, some programs can sort things out for a minority.


Lava

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono, It follows that you're saying alms-giving is the solution (or let's say the best available). Care to explain how that works?

Sure. If you dont give, they starve.

Or engage in crime that costs you far more than the handouts would - as happens in US a lot.


Lava

[Nono]

Originally posted by Nono+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> As for giving alms (pizza, blankets, etc.) it will keep them from starving or freezing to death. But they'll still be on the street. Somebody has to redistribute the wealth, and that ain't gonna be the Salvation Army. Only government.[/b]

Hey Lava, I agree with you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lava
There is an underclass of people so messed up they really cant sort out their own problems, even to the extent of basics like food and shelter.[/quote]

Very true. And charity is the best you can do for them, precisely because there's no real solution to their problem. I'm talking about problems that can be solved, that deserve something more than a bandaid.

As for solving the problem any other way, I dont thnik you can. There is a range of reasons why people are where they are, and mental problems and idiocy are nearly insoluble.

Beyond a certain point. Europe is vast and varied. But on the streets of North America (and I include the 51st state...) there's a lot of wasted potential. Apart from anything else, there's a black underclass in the US (about 10% of the population) that would do a lot better in different conditions. (I'm not necessarily talking about government handouts there.)

[Nono]

Originally posted by Nono Europe is vast and varied.

Come to think of it, in its way the EU has just embarked on a colossal wealth-distribution scheme: this year's expansion. And last week's declaration of Turkish eligibility takes that a giant step further.
Ain't saying I'm personally completely comfortable with it, but there you go.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava There is an underclass of people so messed up they really cant sort out their own problems, even to the extent of basics like food and shelter.

Very true. And charity is the best you can do for them, precisely because there's no real solution to their problem. I'm talking about problems that can be solved, that deserve something more than a bandaid.[/b][/quote]
Well, would you like to be specific and tell me what the problems are that society could address, and possibly even how we could address them?

It strikes me that although we /could/ put all sorts of socialist type things into place to help the poorest have a higher standard of living, firstly it is mostly wasted in my observation, and secondly we only have so much resources, and it seems more deserving for the non essentials to go more to those who put in the planning, work, and carry off constructive projects, rather than people who sit round all day collecting handouts, smoking dope, and vandalising what the rest of us have put real work into to own. Ie to people that use their assets to produce rather than to use and waste.

Lava

[Nono]

Originally posted by Lava Be specific and tell me what the problems are that society could address, and possibly even how we could address them.

To put it in a nutshell, the problem is increasing concentration of wealth: two poles of haves and have-nots, with growing vulnerability in the middle-income range.

Those at the bottom of the greasy pole can be helped first and foremost by job creation. This can be done, for example, through fiscal inducements: cut jobs and you'll pay more; create them and you'll pay less. Another example -- one of thousands -- would be to ban self-service gas stations: someone would be paid to pump your gas and clean your windshield. There is absolutely no reason why this could not be done. Jobs are disappearing.

Other measures are job-training programmes, more support for schools, helping people to get higher education, etc. etc.

These "socialist type things" are, in your view, "mostly wasted". Why?

It seems more deserving for the non essentials to go more to those who put in the planning, work, and carry off constructive projects, rather than people who sit round all day collecting handouts, smoking dope, and vandalising what the rest of us have put real work into to own. Ie to people that use their assets to produce rather than to use and waste.

I think that's most people. What percentage of poor people would you say fit the caricature of "sitting round all day collecting handouts, smoking dope, and vandalisin"? 100%? 99%? C'mon, such people do exist but they're nowhere near the majority in my experience.

We only have so much resources.

All a question of political will. I think you've been lulled by the Neoliberal Lullaby.

[Scribbler1]

I think the line is being blurred between the have nots and tha "have nothing"s. We will always have poor but the poor but able are being lumped in with the unemployable.
Remember the quickly forgotten Bush proposal to make illegal immigrants from Mexico almost everything but actual citizens. The idea was to let in anyone who wanted to work so they could send their money back home and MAYBE become legals. The argument was that Americans will not do stoop labor jobs. I don't buy that argument for a minute and I doubt Bush and all those who like this plan (read: Agribusiness owners who would prefer to pay slave wages) ever ASKED a newly homeless person who might have been working but his position was downsized or outsourced if they would work those jobs.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava Be specific and tell me what the problems are that society could address, and possibly even how we could address them.

To put it in a nutshell, the problem is increasing concentration of wealth: two poles of haves and have-nots, with growing vulnerability in the middle-income range.[/b][/quote]
How does pay level stop a homeless person from getting a job? Or a homed welfare recipient? I cant see it at all.

Those at the bottom of the greasy pole can be helped first and foremost by job creation.

But there are always jobs available: look in any relevant newspaper at the job ads.

The problem is that the worst off are not fit for work. It is _they_ who are at fault. Typical problems include:

very antisocial attitude
failing to wash often
idiocy
mental illness
criminality
no comprehension of even the most basic concepts any employee needs to understand to work for a business.
making little or no effort to get a job
and so on.

This can be done, for example, through fiscal inducements: cut jobs and you'll pay more; create them and you'll pay less. Another example -- one of thousands -- would be to ban self-service gas stations: someone would be paid to pump your gas and clean your windshield. There is absolutely no reason why this could not be done.

Of course there is a reason: its a complete waste of everyones time, money and resources, and acts directly against the free will of those who are making a _serious_ effort to create wealth by providing goods and services that people find useful and are perpared to pay for. It is a move in precisely the opposite direction to what any healthy society or successful businses is all about. With such beliefs I can only conclude you dont run your own business: if you did you would never entertain such unrealistic ideas.

Jobs are disappearing.

Well, I see page after page of job ads every time I look. Every time I've been to the jobcentre, which admittedly is rarely, I've seen whole walls covered with cards of job ads. Either we live in very different places, or you're giving us very poor excuses.

Other measures are job-training programmes,

now that I do agree with. Of course they'll only be effective for those that choose to go on them. A lot of welfare recipients here have no intention of working, theyd much rather be paid peanuts and do nothing.

more support for schools,

OK, but what does that actually translate into? Money is no solution to school's ills imho, the solution lies in knowledge. Knowledge of how to discipline the students, how to motivate them to work, how to avoid de-motivating them, and knowledge of how to get serious results. Unfortunately most schools have little or none of these qualities.

I once did an hour of tuition, it was on probabilities. What that student had been trying unsuccessfully to learn in school for _weeks_ we covered in 1 hour, and she understood the lot. All of it.

My own experience of school is that the subjects I did best in were the ones I learnt outside of lessons - or in lessons by reading the book and completely ignoring the teacher.

I guess its obvious by now I think our public education system needs some serious reform.

helping people to get higher education, etc. etc.

that we have here, and i fully support it. People often complain that its a handout to people who want to muck around while they learn, but the reality is that qualified people will put far more than that handout back into society with their skills later.

These "socialist type things" are, in your view, "mostly wasted". Why?

Because I have seen poor people, a lot. The majority do not appreciate the things that are of value, and treat it like it was junk. That is of course one of the several reasons why theyre poor. A very common attitude is 'it ought to be given to us, why didnt they give us more, like the rich have, and frankly, its not as good as we wanted - so stuff it, lets just destroy it.'

I think that's most people. What percentage of poor people would you say fit the caricature of "sitting round all day collecting handouts, smoking dope, and vandalisin"? 100%? 99%? C'mon, such people do exist but they're nowhere near the majority in my experience.

Well, here in Britain I'd say the majority of welfare recipients do fit that. Nothing like 99%, but more than half.

All a question of political will. I think you've been lulled by the Neoliberal Lullaby.

A classic debate manipulation technique, not a valid argument. And its also better to find out about a person before making judgements on things you dont really know.


Regards, Lava