"Not Suffering Enough"

[paft.livejournal.com]

From “The Sharp Sudden Decline of America’s Middle Class” in Rolling Stone Magazine:

"I didn't wear my best clothes, but I wore a light blouse and jeans, and I guess I was just a little too dressed up," she recalls. "Because the woman just looked at me and said, 'Are you in a crisis? Your application says you're in a crisis.' I said, 'I'm living in a van and I don't have a job. I have a little bit of money, but it's going to go fast.' The woman said, 'You have $500. You're not in a crisis if you have $500.' She said anything more than $50 was too much."

If Adkins had filled her tank with gas, done her laundry, eaten a meal, and paid her car insurance and phone bills, it would have used up half of everything she had. But emergency food stamps, she was told, are not for imminent emergencies; they're for emergencies already in progress. You can't get them if you can make it through the next week – you have to be down to the last few meals you can afford.

"The money's for my phone, it's for gas, it's for my bills," Adkins said.

"Why are you in a crisis," the woman asked, "when you have a phone bill?"

"I need the phone so I can get a job. You can't look for a job without a phone."

"Why do you have bills?" the woman asked. "I thought you didn't have a place to live."

"I live in my van," Adkins said. "I have insurance."

"You have a 2007 van," the woman said. "I think you need to sell that."

"Please, I need a break," Adkins said. "I need some help. I need to take a shower."

"Why didn't you have a shower?"

"I live in a van."

The woman told Adkins to come back when she really needed help.

This article in Rolling Stone Magazine is a chilling reminder of what is happening to the middle class. Janis Adkins, the woman in the excerpt quoted above, is not mentally ill, or a substance abuser, or a deadbeat. She was, until the crash of 2008 a successful business owner, who, at the time this article was written was reduced to living out of her van. The exchange with a civil servant over whether or not she qualified for food stamps reflects a common attitude towards the poor and the homeless. She’s being asked to give up the things that are keeping her from sliding into even greater destitution – the phone she needs in order to search for and get a job, and the van she needs for shelter.

In the eyes of many, she’s just not suffering enough.

Not so long ago, at a dinner party, I met a woman who had recently returned from a visit to South America. She was using the horrifying levels of poverty she’d seen there as a rationale for curling her lip at America’s poor. “I’ve seen what real poverty is,” she declared, “so I’m not impressed when I hear some American whining about being poor and hungry. I mean, it’s not like they’re actually starving to death. I saw people over there who were.”

“So, should we wait until Americans are starving to death before doing something about it?” asked one of the other diners.

The notion that America’s poor just aren’t having a hard enough time is quite popular on the American right, who make a point of carefully ignoring other western industrialized countries and using the Third World as a measuring stick. Listen to them and you get the sense that in order to qualify for sympathy and aid, the poor have to be homeless, physically disabled, and not just hungry but weak, hollow-eyed and emaciated.

These right-wingers remind me of the people who said, back when President George W. Bush was legalizing torture eliminating habeas corpus and pushing the Patriot Act, “I’ll start worrying about my civil liberties the day they take away my next door neighbor.”

Wait until a government is bold enough to openly treat dissent that way, and you’ve waited too long. Wait until being poor in this country means literally starving to death, and you aren’t just going to have to start helping the poor.

You’re going to have to start doing major repairs on our society, because that level of poverty damages a nation, makes it less stable, less safe and less free.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

She’s being asked to give up the things that are keeping her from sliding into even greater destitution

Incorrect. She was being told why she didn't fit the requirements.

Listen to them and you get the sense that in order to qualify for sympathy and aid, the poor have to be homeless, physically disabled, and not just hungry but weak, hollow-eyed and emaciated.

Then you're listening wrong. What's being said (usually) is that the poor and hungry are worse off than the poor here, so we should be helping them first.

the people who said, back when President George W. Bush was legalizing torture eliminating habeas corpus and pushing the Patriot Act, “I’ll start worrying about my civil liberties the day they take away my next door neighbor.”

Citation needed. Plus, most of "those people" were liberal.

You’re going to have to start doing major repairs on our society, because that level of poverty damages a nation, makes it less stable, less safe and less free.

Then we should stop liberal policies that drive us to that.

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: Incorrect. She was being told why she didn't fit the requirements.

And in order to fit the requirements, she must be without shelter or much hope of finding a job.

g: Then you're listening wrong. What's being said (usually) is that the poor and hungry are worse off than the poor here, so we should be helping them first.

So before helping Americans, the US must help people in other countries?

g: Citation needed. Plus, most of "those people" were liberal.

Not the people I heard saying it. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to link you to opinion board messages from almost a decade ago.

Paft: You’re going to have to start doing major repairs on our society, because that level of poverty damages a nation, makes it less stable, less safe and less free. "
g: Then we should stop liberal policies that drive us to that.

It's not liberals who are saying "let' em starve/die."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And if we implemented libertarian policies we'd see people try this:



Because it would turn out that giving all power to the corporations solves nothing and people in the USA wouldn't like the reality that'd result from imposing feudalism's modern successor.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

What do you think would be enough? What should the government provide to every citizen? Should any citizen have to face hard times?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Enough to provide basics like food, shelter, medical care, education for children, some modicum of dignity, and the means of getting a job.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why this contempt for the idea that the government should protect us from hardship is such an obviously-merited view held by conservatives.

I can understand that maybe the government can't effectively provide us with basic living necessities, the means of getting a job, etc. That would be an empirical argument that we can demonstrate based on evidence (not that conservatives generally tend to support the argument in this way). But as a goal? What is gained by throwing up our hands at the problem of poverty, hunger, despondency, etc.?

Does that make us better people? Does the constant threat of complete, irreversible economic devastation somehow make us more virtuous?

I mean, sure - someone will always be "the poorest," the "least well-off." That doesn't mean that we have to let that floor drop below the level of "starvation" or "poverty so deep and self-perpetuating the only way out is an act of radical charity." We can draw the line in objective terms; survival is not defined in merely relative terms.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

She paid into the system for years, it's not unreasonable to expect something back from it when times are tough. What's the point of a safety net when the holes in the net are too big to catch you?

If we're looking for "the line," it would be people who have no interest in working, aside from working the system. Take these clowns, for example:

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What do you think would be enough?
The utter and complete destruction of all accumulated wealth. Reset that shit to zero, son. Get your sticks out, we're shepherds again. Anything less is atheistic decadence.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The government should provide enough that it doesn't have to worry about a revolution (that would never work, but even so it's not like a smart government sets out to make one).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Even if they did qualify as that the people you're talking about wouldn't give a damn. The only concern those people have is themselves.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You can measure US education, health and poverty against third world countries. Tell me again why the US is first world?

Oh yeah, the big boom sticks ;)

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

i'm praying for the day when our Educators are paid healthy salaries and the length of our school-days become more similar to the duration of a Taiwanese system....if that doesn't ensure an education then i don't know what will :(

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

and the fact that as a general rule our government only uses those boom-sticks against "dirty feriners" and not us.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Overinflated egos.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because it's not Communist. The First World is the bloc led by the USA, the Second World disappeared in 1989-91 in Europe, expands in Asia without anyone giving a damn, and the Third World was everyone else.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So how many assets are too many to qualify for food stamps in your mind?

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you can give an exact answer, but I definitely agree that things like clothing and a phone should not be considered barriers to food stamps. Saying that you can't get food stamps unless you lack everything that enables you to get a job undermines the idea of government assistance in the first place.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Depends on the cost of living in your particular location of residence.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Irrelevant. These are emergency food stamps, not the regular food stamps most people use.

To get food stamps, your home and land, as long as it's not for sale, and your primary vehicle are exempt from consideration when you apply. A second car that is worth less than about $5K is also excluded. As are your retirement accounts and a few thousand in your checking or savings accounts.

Emergency food stamps are a different program aimed at people in immediate danger of going hungry. You do need to be destitute to apply for them, but then they're a program aimed at extreme cases. You need to have less than $100 in your bank account to apply for these according to federal guidelines but this might vary from state to state. This makes them a really bad program to use to judge welfare benefits in the US but perfect for a post such as this.

[737-700.livejournal.com]

It is pretty much the same in Canada, I wasn't able to work for part of the year due to health issues, so I had to go on assistance but in order to get assistance you literally have to have no other options, own a car, gotta sell it, eligible for alimony/spousal support but not getting it, well better try and collect, have a life insurance policy well better sell it and use those funds.

In many ways the US system is better, atleast there is a food stamp program.

Its really not really unique to the US. Its easy to try and make it seem as such, but its not.

[beemo.livejournal.com]

what kind of assistance? i'm canadian as well and not really clear on our assistance programs besides "it's a bitch to get" and how they interact with student loans

i totally agree about food stamps. i wish we had those.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

I am so glad that I live in a civilised* country where the threshold for unemployment benefits is not "are you homeless, destitute, filthy and starving?" but "can you reasonably be expected to seek and enter employment?" Why is it not more widely recognised in the US that before a person can work, they have to be fit to work, and if someone is homeless, destitute, filthy and starving, they're just not?

*Some might prefer to read that as "socialist".

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Fridges and microwaves (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/30-million-in-poverty-arent-as-poor-as-you-think-says-heritage-foundation/242191/). Apparently, that's the threshold of poverty. Got a fridge? You're not poor then, dontchaknow!

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

There used to be a safety net. Even St. Reagan believed in it but apparently even Reagan is too liberal by today's standards.

The safety net does not have to be a one-sided giveaway to the poor. It can be a way to keep people and families from falling so far that they do become dependent upon handouts. In this way it can be considered an investment in eventually making people productive. Unfortunately the way "conservative" rhetoric is going today they don't want dependency yet seem to do everything in their power to support policies that practically force dependency, such as what you state in the OP. Another is railing against recidivism and preventing former convicts from finding employment.

Case history from a different point in time when college degrees mattered. A lower middle class married couple in college ends up with an unexpected pregnancy. The options are abortion, quitting college and again taking a low paying job, or getting some assistance from the government to enable completion of college. The optimal course of action from a conservative point of view is the third. The human life is preserved, the degree is achieved so more taxes are eventually paid by the couple to offset the cost, the couple has a better life and provides productive middle-class offspring who aren't likely to need assistance. Taking away the assistance, the safety net, the investment, causes sub-optimal outcomes, the very ones conservatives don't want, but who also don't want to provide the assistance. Lest anyone think this is an ivory tower thought experiment, the case is real: it is mine.

To be brutally honest, the current climate in "conservative" circles is mean-spirited, specious, pompous and isn't even conservative but reactionary. It follows the old policies of southern states in having a severely underfunded government where all but a select few live in perpetual impoverishment caused by lack of services, instituted policies that continue the death-march and reliance on federal government handouts in excess of earned value. I've lived in both areas and I'll take NY or MA over certain unnamed southern states any time despite the higher taxes. All I can say is I hear ya' tea partiers, I've certainly had no problem with that. I reject your core principles. I don't want the country to go in the direction you're taking us because I've seen the result, and it sucks.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

To be brutally honest, the current climate in "conservative" circles is mean-spirited, specious, pompous and isn't even conservative but reactionary.


Have you read Josh Barro's piece Who Needs Posner When You Have Mises and Hayek? (http://www.thetrainofthought.org/2012/07/cult-of-austrian-economics.html) ?

Richard Posner gave an interview to NPR this week in which he blasts current-day conservatives and says today's "goofy" Republican Party has made him less conservative. Over the last 10 years, he said, "There's been a real deterioration in conservative thinking. And that has to lead people to re-examine and modify their thinking." Posner is probably the most respected judge in America who doesn't sit on the Supreme Court, and a key thinker in the law and economics movement. His alienation is a reflection of how hostile the conservative movement has become to intellectuals.

Of course, conservatives will tell you they care a lot about intellectual grounding. These days, they especially love Austrian economists, such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. I have a whole bookshelf dedicated to duplicate copies of Austrian economics books that conservative and libertarian organizations have given to me for free. I have four copies of The Road to Serfdom, which is like Dianetics for libertarians.

There are two big reasons today's right loves the Austrians. One is that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles. It's philosophy dressed up as economics; with the Austrians, there is never any risk that real-world events will interfere with your ideology.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

That attitude of "not my problem until it's my problem" is destroying this country.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Wait... I want to ask a simple question. How much suffering is too much suffering? I mean living in a van is pretty bad for our nation. Hell, I'm living in a tent, one that leaks every time a rain drop hits it. I guess I am not suffering enough because I still have a job that pays minimal wage. Yeah, got evicted, got demoted from my supervisors position, which paid marginally better than what I make now. My 07 F150 is down with a broken power steering hose, that only gawd himself knows when Ford will crap out a part for that. I can sell that piece of shit, but then how will I work? That's right I work, I bust my ass to bring home two hundred dollars a week. Ah but I'm using the internet, I have a phone. I am using the internet provided by the park where I live. I have a cell phone, because my 07 F150 is so undependable that when it dies again, I will need someone to know what happened.

I am frantically trying to find something that pays better, or even the same that is closer to the park I am living in. I am hoping to find a hovel before winter, because I cannot live in a leaking tent through the winter. Is that suffering enough? I have not had a decent mean in almost two months, eating the cheapest crap I can find in the store. Is that suffering enough? How about the three suicides in the park I am living at. Yeah three separate suicides of elderly families in just a month. Is that suffering enough?

Again, how much suffering is too much suffering? If you think that is not suffering, you try it. I'll give you the tent. Better yet go sleep in the front seat of your car for a week, while eating Polish Kielbasa. I have one better for you, try sleeping in the parking lot of a gas station because you don't have the money to buy gas. On that one I know some smart ass will comment about managing your money better, but as I said in the beginning, I only bring home two hundred dollars a week, half of which is used for gas, just to keep working. There are people who are doing worse than I am, I know it, and for the so called richest nation in the world, its bullshit.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Typical.