Economy

Rant

There but for the Grace of God

Posted 5 months ago|22 comments|316 views
Occupy The World
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
When I first became working with the Occupy movement, I thought the movement should disassociate itself from the homeless, because the right wing would point to the scruffiness and the occasional misbehaviors of the homeless, and associate that with the Occupy movement.

But the Occupations, which are mostly gone now, were useful because it allowed those of us who can come home to nice comfy homes at night, to meet a part of our society which is pretty much kept out of sight and under wraps.

Most of us, the ones lucky enough to still have a job, or a home the banks haven't foreclosed on, think that there is something bad about the homeless so we shun them.

Isn't it interesting how we associate immorality with poverty? How we associate goodness with wealth?

Sitting in meetings and talking to people, I was impressed with how articulate and intelligent most of the people were. Sometimes I could tell someone had a few problems, but in most cases I was surprised to find that the person who had been talking to me was homeless. They were just plain folk – like me. Like people everywhere each of us have different abilities, backgrounds, and stories to tell.

One woman told me she had been kidnapped and tortured when she was 16 years old. Another woman who had set up a woman's shelter in the camp, told me that even though she had been helping women for years, she was hearing stories that horrified even her. About half of the women and children who are homeless are fleeing domestic violence.

The kids in camp seemed to be bright and intelligent. Their teachers probably had no idea that they went home to a tent at night. 39% of the homeless are children under 18. Many young adults are kicked out of their homes for being LGBT.

There seemed to be a lot of vets in the camp. Most of them had served in the Gulf wars and had various problems like PTSD, but most of the time you wouldn't notice. About 13% of the homeless are veterans.

The campers are kept safe because of rules against drugs and alcohol, and peacekeepers wander around at night to defuse or de-escalate situations. One of the peacekeepers was telling us that the previous night he had encountered a drunk that was verbally abusive. This guy was about 6'5" tall and scared the peacekeeper. Others said that he should have called the cops. Just then the individual walked in, and the peacekeeper talked to him and told him he was drunk on his axx last night. The guy turned out to be just a big teddy bear and seemed very nice. He said he had been celebrating his birthday but didn't remember being abusive. About 38% of the homeless have alcohol problems and 26% have other drug problems. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factshee...

What strikes me the most about all of these people are that they are just regular folk, but that most of them are victims and survivors. They are all worthy of our respect. There but for the grace of God go I.

Nowadays you don't have to have problems, to have lost your home and be tossed out on the streets. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and even those who can land a minimum wage job would have to work 89 hrs. a week to afford a 2 bedroom Apartment.

About two thirds of bankruptcies and about half of foreclosures are caused by medical problems. There are about 50 million people that are uninsured. http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/m...

The homeless are shunned as failures, but in many if not most cases, these people are not out on the streets because of any fault of their own. It is not a failure of the homeless that is such a tragedy. It is the failure of society. We tend to ostracize the victims of society and hero worship those who have benefited most.
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

The movement has pointed out to the nation the extreme income inequality in this country, and how the rich have undue influence over government and have rigged it so they reap the most of the benefits. It is also important because it has illuminated the plight of the homeless. The occupations were valuable because they treated the homeless with compassion and with the respect and dignity they deserve. It has introduced those of us who are fortunate, to those who are less fortunate. We are all alike. Now that we know some of them we will continue to fight for them.

It has also awoken the students in the country who are suffering because of high tuition and staggering student debt. They have also met the homeless and realized that there are many kindred spirits amongst them. We are all suffering to some degree, we are the 99%, but some are not suffering at all. The wealth of the 1% has increased 275%. The corporations have record profits, but both are paying the lowest taxes in 60 years.

When the occupiers are told to take a shower and get a job, they say how? That is what this is all about. There are no showers or even toilets available for the homeless. There are no jobs for them or even for the student graduates. Only those with current jobs need apply. Most of the benefits of society have been channeled to those who need the help the least.

Societies are judged by how they care for their poor, their sick, their young, and their elderly. Posterity will find us lacking.


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
5 months ago: Right on Al.

If we get rid of Obama, a vast majority of these homeless and unemployed will have homes and jobs.

One important point you misunderstand, the wider the income gap, the more poor people benefit. Rich people spend their money. That means they give it to other people. Rich people employ others; therefore, those others will have a job. Poor people do not give people jobs. Jobs are what we need. If rich people have money to spend, new rich people come about. The more rick people there are, the better off the poor people are. etc.

Capiche?

It's called E C O N O M I C S. If you study history, all of human history, you find that smaller government means a happier, healthier, richer society.
5 months ago: Sorry Red...

You say... "The more rich people there are, the better off the poor people are" ...are you saying greed is good? The richer people are the more they do spend... however the more the mouths there are to feed by the meager morsels tossed to the peasants. As the gap widens in "class" so does the ability for people to compete for the single dollar they need... especially because the inflation eats it faster.
5 months ago: Greed is bad...... for that greedy person. If somebody is greedy, that is their problem.... not mine.

People can get rich without being greedy. They can work their butts off and be lucky too boot.

When is the last time a poor person employed somebody else and paid them a wage so that person could feed their family, and buy a car and a house and......?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
5 months ago: I don't necessarily equate wealth with greed. Some of the most generous people I know are fabulously wealthy. And some of the most miserly self centered folks are poor.

This economy of ours isn't one in which peasants have to depend lords and ladies to provide them sustenance. There are opportunities abounding. But we have a class within a class. Illegal workers who will work for half price. Then we have big companies and small businesses hiring them to save a buck. Now, that's greed, when you are willing to break to law to make a bigger bottom line.

Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
5 months ago: I'm not sure that the vast majority of homeless people would get jobs. I do agree that the smaller the government is the more money that the private sector can create.

Rich people are rich because they keep their money...Currently, there have not been any tax increases on "the rich" or "corporations" yet unemployment is high. This is a strange anomaly in economics. Historically static tax policy allows for job growth, however this is an extra-ordinary situation. Market forces are more responsive to the threat of tax increases than they are to actual policy. With the threat of over regulation and tax increases the private sector has experienced a strange lack of recovery following a recession. It could be that the most recent recession was wrongly identified and was rather a depression, however considering that unemployment didn't raise dramatically nor did consumer spending drop dramatically it is more likely the fact that the private market is simply being very finicky (like a deer during hunting season). Coupled with a weak banking market and housing collapse the markets simply are sluggish to recover from the recession. It is possible that this is a Double Dip recession, though I doubt that because of a lack of compounding economic factors that would lead to a double dip.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: The problem Red is that you are 100% wrong about everything you said.

All of the policies of the Republicans depending on the invisible hand of the free market will not give jobs to any of the homeless. The 1% likes unemployment because it drives down the wages that big business has to pay. It makes the employment playing field much more competitive so the companies can concentrate on hiring only the best and the brightest. That is why they advertise that only those currently holding jobs need apply. They are afraid that all of the unemployed have lost their work skills so they won't even consider them.

Obama's jobs bill would have made that illegal and would have created millions of jobs, but the Republicans wouldn't want that. They just voted down a bill that would have given a tax break to the middle class and would have given small businesses tax breaks for hiring people, because they only cater to the 1%.

We tried throwing money at the rich for the last 13 years and they didn't spend the money. They put it in off shore accounts and bought even more homes on the French Riviera. There were No Net Jobs during all of the Bush years.

The best way to get the homeless jobs is with programs like Job Corps which targets them and retrains them. We really need another WPA. Jan Schakowsky has a good plan that would give 2.2 million of the chronically unemployed jobs but the Republicans wouldn't even consider the bill. http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?op...

The republicans claim that throwing money at the rich makes them create jobs, but only 1% of the jobs created are from millionaires. All of the republican policies only help the 1% and hurt the 99%.

On the other hand Obama's programs are working now that he isn't doing what the Republicans want. Unemployment went from 9.8% last year when he was coddling the Republicans and now it is 8.6% thanks to the payroll tax cuts and the other 18 tax cuts that Obama enacted.
5 months ago: Altruist,

I liked your post... but you loose me every time when you make it out to be a "Democratic vs Republican" problem. Neither party are your saviors...
they call it a "Party" because that's what they both do with public money !:]
5 months ago: BTW,

I like your picture, you grew your beard out... very urban !:]
5 months ago: I am told Obama once worked, briefly, for a lawfirm in the private sector, and he is quoted as saying he was working "Behind Enemy Lines."

Have you ever worked "behind enemy lines" Al?

Have you ever had to be responsible for and make an overhead 1, 2, 3 or any months?

Huh?

Do you have a clue what you are talking about?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: Truthbrary I know there are a bunch of people that blame Obama for everything that is wrong with the economy but until we get instant runnoff voting with proportional representation we really do only have two possibilities. Half of the Democrats may have sold out to the 1% but 100% of the Republicans have.

I like the questions on Americans Elect, but that is funded by Wall Street so I think it is just an attempt to be a spoiler to mess up Obama. What other alternatives would you consider?
5 months ago: Al. Does Obama or does he not own this economy?

I was wondering when you would fall back on "it's Bushs' fault".

FYI buddy. There are more exWall Streeters working in the current White House than the previous. Want to call that a lie or will you admit it is true?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: TCG that is why so many Occupiers dislike Obama. During the first two years he tried to appease Wall Street and the Republicans by giving in to them, and by having all of his advisers from Wall Street. It is obscene to have a jobs czar that was head of GE.

On the other hand it always takes a while to learn how to do a job well. In the last few months Obama is demonstrating that he might have learned from his mistakes.

Red I started working in 1966 and by the time I was 15 I had my own business. I worked steadily since in dozens of fields and put myself through 9 years of college with only $1800 in student loans which I repaid. I only received 2 weeks of unemployment in all of the time I worked.
5 months ago: Agreed Al. There would be the rub. Obama has in fact installed more Bankers, Wall Streeters and FED members to high positions which control every aspect of our lives. All of which have donated more corporate dollars to Obama and the DNC for political purposes than all of the Republicans combined. Would you like a chance to rethink your statements about Republicans controlling corporate dollars for political campaigns?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
5 months ago:
Obama wasn't appeasing the Republicans by appointing Wall St. execs to most of his cabinet positions. He was appeasing those who paid to put him in the White House.


All that hard successful work, nine years of college, and having to scrape by on $1400/month pension? You might see that as a demonstration of how the rich man is trying to keep the common man down. I see it as a lack of planning.

"Once there lived an ant and a grasshopper in a grassy meadow..."
5 months ago: I wonder if someone "retired" before the age of 65 and decided to coast for the last 15 years on their state funded school teacher pension. Would that be the Ant or the Grasshopper?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
5 months ago: "On the other hand it always takes a while to learn how to do a job well."


The job of "leader of the free world" is not one which should require on the job training. He had no real experience at much of anything practical, and is still trying to figure out what to do and say. By the time he gets it figured out, if he does, his time will be up, and in the meantime the whole world is suffering his mistakes.

Maybe, I pray, the people who voted for him out of some feel-good sense of moral justification, have learned their lesson, and have realized that change is not always a good thing.
5 months ago: No kidding. Name a single company that will allow an employee to learn a position for three years. Most companies might give you a month until your out on the street.
5 months ago: Well then Al. It appears you do have standing.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: I already conceded that the Democrats are half bought off - but that the right is 100% bought off.

The reason Obama and the Democrats have any chance is that they are continuously trying to help the common people whereas the Republicans are only trying to help the 1%. The Dems at least some plans based on research and real economists. The right only has ideological pipe dreams.

Look for example at the payroll tax break. Even though the Republicans have pledged never to raise taxes, they are apparently willing to do so as long as it isn't the 1% who gets taxed.

So I notice all of you on the right get real still when it comes to any plans for fixing the economy or helping the homeless get a job. You are all totally devoid of any fresh ideas or solutions to any of our problems.

Once the Tea Party gang got into office all they could do is screw everything up worse with that debt ceiling fiasco and the austerity plans that are killing jobs.

The old failed mantra of the right is that tax cuts and deregulation will solve everything, but that is what got us in the problem in the first place. The deregulation resulted in the financial collapse and then in the BP disaster, and all of the tax cuts and wars doubled the national debt. Now all you want to do is make the same mistakes all over again.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: Last year Wall Street gave more to the Democrats because they were trying to influence legislation, and all of their money was effective in keeping any regulations on the banks or Wall Street that had any teeth, but now Wall Street is giving far more to the Republicans, because they are trying to undo Dodd Frank and whatever other minor controls the Dems put on Wall St. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is under attack from the Republicans who are refusing to ever vote for any nominee to head the agency.

Three GOP co-sponsors of anti-CFPB bills in the House received $1.4 MILLION in Wall Street donations (bribes) during the 2010 election cycle. House members who voted to cripple the agency earlier this year have taken 83 percent more money from Wall Street than those who didn't. And the 10 Republican senators who voted against Cordray's nomination in Senate Banking Committee have received $31 MILLION from the financial industry. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
5 months ago: There goes that same old "shades of gray" philosophy. I forget what the fancy word for it is. So what you are saying is that your crooks are currently better than the other crooks.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.