Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Supporting vs Becoming Co-Dependent

From Minnpost: It's expensive to be poor in the Twin Cities
"Yes it is expensive to live in MN. But this is true for the poor, the middle class and the rich. We have high heating costs, we have winter clothes, we have high income taxes (third highest in the U.S.), we have high energy costs with the 25% mandate for higher cost alternative energy, etc.

We live here for clean air, clean water, good education systems, low crime rate, good companies and good jobs.

Many of the poor have rejected free education and rejected being life-long learners. They traded good MN education for being slaves to government dependency." Mike

"This should have Christians up in arms. You can't read far into the Old Testament without hearing a prophet railing against the injustices committed by the powerful against the weak and lowly of society. It's a frequent theme, and is discussed far more than the right and wrong way to conduct religious ceremonies.

Were guys like Isaiah and Amos walking the streets today, they'd be up in arms over the denial of reasonably priced financial services for the poor." Frank
 "Then again many of them haven't. But I'm sure your caricature of the poor helps justify the lack empathy you have for people you don't know.
Please continue...I want to hear more of your struggle to buy a warm coat and heat your home under the crushing tyranny of a 25% energy mandate." Jason

"I have a great deal of empathy for the folks who were unlucky at birth and did not choose to improve their circumstances with our free education system. And those who are addicted to something that keeps them poor. That does not mean that I want to enter into a co-dependent relationship with them.

Wiki Codependency

I agree we should help these folks, however how do we do this without enabling them?" G2A
Thoughts?  As stated in another post, apparently we have spent billions on Baltimore and they still have 15 bars and no real grocery stores in some neighborhoods. 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do know it's cheaper to be fairly well off. It's hard to deny that.

--Hiram

John said...

Maybe on a percentage basis...

But certainly not in terms of dollars spent...

As you remind us often, the rich are the ones who can afford to fund our government bureaucracy and the benefits for the low income folk.

Anonymous said...

On an absolute basis too. Lots of stuff is cheaper when you can afford it. The world is full of bargains when you are in a position to take advantage of them.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

As you remind us often, the rich are the ones who can afford to fund our government bureaucracy and the benefits for the low income folk.

Hedge fund managers are much more expensive than government bureaucrats and the rich have no problem funding them.

--Hiram

Sean said...

If you want to talk codependency, it seems to me that conservatives are the ones who are truly codependent with the poor, as their entire self-image seems to be based on comparing their virtue versus the poor's lack of virtue.

John said...

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? You are sounding a lot like Hank Rearden's nephew, when he guilted Hank into giving to a charity he supported, then the nephew said he couldn't tell the folks at the charity where the money came from because he did not want them to know he associated with Hank.

"The concept "sanction of the victim" is defined by Leonard Peikoff as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values".

Accordingly, throughout Atlas Shrugged, numerous characters are frustrated by this sanction, as when Hank Rearden appears duty-bound to support his family, despite their hostility toward him; later, the principle is stated by Dan Conway: "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed. If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain".

John Galt further explains the principle: "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us", and, "I saw that evil was impotent ... and the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it"."

Sean said...

No, I don't base my politics off of novels.

John said...

A cc of an MP comment I left:

"What would Jesus do? That is an interesting question. I really am not sure?

The Bible speaks of being charitable and giving Caeser what is Caeser's, however it also looks poorly on sloth and sinful ways. The Bible praises people that come to God and strive for excellence, and berates those that are greedy and undisciplined. It stresses the importance of forgiving those that have sinned and are seeking to change.

Personally I think the poor can be just as greedy, slothful and sinful as the wealthy. And many have squandered their physical and mental gifts. So I think Jesus would considered each person on a case by case basis and then determine what to do for each one.

Of course, the Bible is full of quotes that can be construed in different ways..."

John said...

Sean,
Now I have to ask... What do you base your politics off?

I am truly curious.

Unknown said...

I think poor people need access to jobs that pay a living wage.

And to low cost banking in their neighborhoods. I think you missed the point of the article again, John.

John said...

Now you do understand why typical businesses avoid those neighborhoods?

You understand why one has to pre-pay before pumping one's gas in those neighborhoods?

You understand why there are more arrests and police officers in the public libraries?

My point is that these communities and some of the people who live there cause many of their own problems. I don't disagree that it would be good if they had low cost banking, more grocery stores than bars, safe streets, academically capable citizens, good jobs, etc.

Then their community would be a lot like Plymouth. The question is how can we get them to become academically capable, law abiding, etc?

And the answer is not to take money from others and give it to them. That does not work as we have learned over the last 50 years.

Unknown said...

maybe anti-poverty programs work better than you think.

Paul Ryan loves talking about poverty, but he keeps getting the basic facts wrong

Unknown said...

Maybe we need to put more affordable/low income housing in areas that will help poor kids succeed.

Why the New Research on Mobility Matters: An Economist’s View

John said...

Seems the Met Council has been trying. Housing Policy

Now the question is how to create affordable housing that is well distributed to get the maximum benefit. And not creating questionable areas in other towns.

By the way, this theory aligns well with my belief that schools with <20% free and reduced lunch numbers is much more likely to be successful. More good peer pressure, volunteers, role models, etc.