🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16 Oct 1998 04:32:58 +0200, Axel Boldt <axel@uni-paderborn.de>
wrote:

>darrow@oneillaw.com (O'Neill) writes:
>
>> No one starves in the United States.  This I can say for sure.  Most
>> of the other necessities are delivered to the poor as well, in varying
>> quantities and with varying degrees of success.
>
>If you are poor in the US, you live in a little self-built card board
>home in the streets of Los Angeles. The police will come by regularly
>and destroy the card board home. You are not allowed to beg for money
>(recent city ordinance). As a single unemployed male you don't receive
>any welfare payments. You don't starve because there are private soup
>kitchens.
>

Hmm, I wonder where you get this information.  It strikes me as
something you might see on TV.  Europeans are obsessed with the
homeless in America.  Every visitor from Europe wants to see them.  I
think it makes them feel better about their own countries.

95 percent of the homeless are not homeless because they're poor, but
because they're insane.  Under our constitution, we cannot
institutionalize them against their will, because that's a deprivation
of their liberty.

For the most part, your scenario is not true.  To the extent anybody
lives in cardboard boxes, it is for reasons other than the absence of
governmental assistance.  Shelter is always available to families, and
in most cities even to a single unemployed male.  Singe unemployed
males can and do receive welfare payments as well.  

The rules on this vary from state to state, and most states now have
some limitations.  But food and shelter are always available, no
questions asked.  Some are sponsored by private agencies, some by
government.  Cash payments are usually limited in time, at least for
single, unemployed males, and it makes sense that they would be.

>In Germany, by contrast, you'd get about $10 cash per day from the
>welfare bureau if you're homeless, and more if you have a dog.

You might not get the $10 cash per day if you're a single, unemployed
male.  But if you get the food and shelter, what is the $10 for?
Pinball arcades?  Sure there's clothing, but I don't spend that much
on my own clothing.

I admit we don't consider dogs a necessity of life here, thus we do
not take them into consideration for determining welfare benefits.
There are animal shelters which are free of charge.


and

On 16 Oct 1998 19:22:38 +0200, Anders Wegge Jakobsen <wegge@wegge.dk>
wrote:

>darrow@oneillaw.com (O'Neill) writes:
>

>> I think when we talk about poverty, we really need to look at whether
>> a person's basic needs are provided for.  Food, clothing, shelter, and
>> medical care.
>
> Ok, so one is only poor, if the basic needs cannot be fullfilled
>without some sort of public compensation? 
>

I don't think there is any one definition that fits all.  

I use the term poverty, which is a little more precise than poor.
Poor is really a relative term.  Compared to Bill Gates, I am poor,
although compared to most of the rest of the world, I am rich.

Clearly I do not live in poverty.  To me, poverty suggests that one is
deprived of one or more of life's basic necessities.  This puts one's
existance at risk.  At that point the government, or society if you
like, should be obligated to get involved.

Getting back to my original point, or one of them, I think that the US
does a good job, relative to most of the rest of the world, at
alleviating privation of life's necessities.


>> There is also a big difference between the urban poor and the rural
>> poor.  This makes comparing the lot of a poor peasant in Bulgaria with
>> someone living in an urban ghetto in the U.S. virtually impossible.
>
> Try comparing rural vs. rural or urban vs. urban. I'm still convinced 
>that in any category, mosyt easter european countries will come out on 
>top. 
>

I would if I could, but I can't.  I don't know much about the rural
poor in Bulgaria, and we don't have much rural poor in the U.S.  We do
have it, to be sure.  

You've stated several times that you are sure the eastern european
countries would compare favorably, but you still haven't said why.

I've never been east of germany, so I can't say.  The slums I saw in
Paris looked as scary as anyplace I've been to in the U.S.  I think a
lot of one's perception has to do with the strangeness of a foreign
land.  Visitors from Italy have been fascinated with the idea of the
Bronx.  They have the impression it's a life threatening situation to
enter the Bronx any time.  This is nonsense.  My wife grew up in the
South Bronx, my mother in law still lives there.  We go there all the
time, day and night.  It's got plenty of crime and drugs, and you do
need to be careful, but being familiar with it takes a lot of the
sense of danger away.

>> No one starves in the United States.  This I can say for sure.  Most
>> of the other necessities are delivered to the poor as well, in varying
>> quantities and with varying degrees of success.  Benefits to the poor
>> are not centralized, they depend on the governments of 50 different
>> states and within the states many cities have programs as well.  Some
>> programs are funded by the federal government.  This patchwork
>> approach makes generalizations very difficult to make.
>
>> I have known a great many people who are on welfare.  Most of them
>> live what we could consider middle class lifestyles, perhaps lower
>> middle class, but middle class nonetheless.  Almost none would
>> consider themselves poor.
>
> Probably not. However, I think that's universally applicable, no
>matter where you look. But in general, I think that many refute that
>they are poor, if for nothing else, then to keep up their own
>illusions. 
>
>> >> Albania is abysmally poor, and I doubt it has any real safety net for
>> >> its citizens.  I wonder about other countries in the Balkans as well.
>> >> Serbia doesn't seem to be doing much for its ethnic Albanians at the
>> >> present apart from trying to kill them.  Maybe they aren't poor, I
>> >> don't know.
>> >
>> > That's still a question of definition. 
>> 
>> please offer some definitions then.
>
> I can't. I chickened out, and fell back on relative comparisions:
> 
>> >I suppose that some Albanians
>> >are rich compared to the rest of the country, even if they aren't by
>> >western standards. 
>> >
>> 
>> this is always the case.
>> 
>> >> I think I would rather be poor in the U.S. than in most European
>> >> countries.  Perhaps the situation is better in some of the more
>> >
>> > I wouldn't. Sure, I'm biased, but I still haven't seen people
>> >living in the streets around here, even though I live in the seconds 
>> >largest city of the country.
>> >
>> 
>> I gather by your email you're in Germany.
>
> Go away, and do something aggrevating to yourself! .dk is Denmark,
>whereas .de is Germany.
>

Sorry, I do know that.  My eyes played a trick on me and I saw de.
 
>> In my experience, Europeans have a particular fascination with the
>> phenomenon of homelessness here in the U.S.  They see it as
>> disgraceful and a badge of shame for what is supposedly the richest
>> country on earth.  
>
> How can it be otherwise? 
> 

because it's actually the result of the wide extent of our civil
liberties.  I have no doubt that every european country has its
mentally ill.  I have no doubt they are safely tucked away from public
view.  We don't do that.  

millions and millions of dollars are spent on caring for the homeless.
if I recall correctly, we spend something like $40,000 a year per
homeless, at least here in NYC.  it's just not about money.  They are
mentally ill, and the one thing we can't do is incarcerate them.  If
you have a solution, there are a great many people here who are
interested in learning about it.

>> The truth is that the homeless are almost without exception mentally
>> ill.  They are on the streets because it is constitutionally unlawful
>> to commit them to mental institutions against their will unless they
>> pose some threat of violence to themselves or others.  These court
>> decisions were made about 20 years ago, and as a result many
>> institutions literally opened their doors, and people who would
>> otherwise be institutionalized are free to fend for themselves.
>
> You'll have to excuse me, but that sound like a pretty weak excuse in 
>my ears. I have no doubt that in some cases, this is the truth, but
>not for all. But even if we discount the homeless, voluntary or not,
>there are still several cases of sub-standard living conditions, like
>apartment complexes with rats running around everywhere. Such cases
>would lead to criminal prosecution of the owner in Denmark. 
>

You'll have to excuse me, but you'll have to come up with better
evidence than just your unwillingness to believe it.  Do a little
research.

Theoretically, this should lead to criminal prosecution of the owner
here in the US, and sometimes it does.  But you can't compare Denmark
with the United States, because the size of our country, and in
particular the size and ethnic diversity of our inhabitants, renders
direct comparisons meaningless.  I don't know the size of your city,
but I would imagine we have more people on welfare in New York than
you have inhabitants in your city.  Your society is a lot more
homogeneous, and that makes a big difference too.

I have lived in New York 16 years, and I have seen rats maybe half a
dozen times.  I know there are rat infested buildings, but the
situation is not epidemic or out of control.


>> I live in New York City, and here we have many shelters for the
>> homeless.  But no one can force the homeless to stay in them against
>> their will.  This is not a problem of poverty.  It is not a problem of
>> jobs.  There are no jobs for the homeless, they are unemployable.
>> 
>> >> prosperous countries, but I understand that situation is changing as
>> >> these countries deal with increasing ethnic minorities.
>> >
>> > Not really. 
>> >
>> 
>> Hmmm, I wonder.  What about all the incidents of violence toward Turks
>> and the like that I have read about.  What is the situation there?
>
> Something like your habit of terminating precidencies by firearms :-) 
>No matter where you look, you'll always find extremists, and
>unfortunately not everyone gets stopped (or can be for that matter),
>until something bad has happened. 
>

Our policy toward firearms is a disgrace.  I readily concede that
Europe has better policies about guns.  But we were talking about
poverty, no?

I can't say that the US is better than all countries in all things.
That's clearly not the case.  I do think that the US's position of
dominance in many areas makes it the subject of a lot of criticism,
much of it not fair.  I went through my period of disenchantment with
this country, but after being some other places and getting a little
older, I've come to appreciate the many great things about this
country.

It's not for nothing that more people from more parts of the world
want to come live here than any other country.

>> >> >> We hardly know what poverty is in this country.  I'm not a right
>> >> >> winger, I'm not a republican or anything close to it.  I have real
>> >> >> problems with the accumulation of excess wealth, but those are moral
>> >> >> problems.  I haven't seen any political system which can deal with
>> >> >> those problems.  THey can only be dealt with by an educated public.
>> >> >> You can't save people from themselves.  Educate them, and they might
>> >> >> be able to make the right decisions though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately not. If that were the case, then the Soviet Union would
>> >> >have fared much, much better. The public is what the public is, and is
>> >> >impossible to change.
>> >> 
>> >> The Soviet Union might have fared better if it did not attempt to
>> >> impose an artificial economic system and had granted its citizens a
>> >> few basic civil liberties.  
>> >
>> > No. The Soviet Union started out in a transitional phase, where the
>> >workers and the peasants supposedly were to receive proper political
>> >education. However, far to soon the basic greed took over.
>> 
>> No doubt, but the country was totally bankrupt as well.
>
> Financially yes. After all, WVI was pretty expensive for most of the
>participants. However, the Soviet Union had tremendous potential,
>which could have made the country the worlds richest, if used
>properly. The same goes for modern Russia.

There are a lot of countries with tremendous potential, Russia being
one. I am sure that in time, Russia will have it's day.