People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
-
@broadwaybabyto I want to scream every time someone mentions the "nice cellphone" that a homeless person has, as if the $150 they spent on the cheapest smartphone they could find would have made them not homeless if spent on rent instead
@fluffy @broadwaybabyto I remember such comments being made about single parents on low incomes in the UK in the 1980s owning VHS players.
In terms of providing entertainment/distraction for your children the economics of a video player (whether bought honestly or "second hand") were hard to beat.
A trip to the cinema was out of the reach of many people. Videos could either be rented, copied or swapped which gave such families access to new films that they would otherwise not have had.
-
@edgeofeurope @broadwaybabyto I once gave a very nice skirt that I'd bought the wrong size to my cousin who was living on social security (in NL). She made the mistake to wear it to the periodic interview and they docked her 25 guilders. (I also gave her the 25 guilders, of course. I had a (minimum wage) job at the time.)
@irina @edgeofeurope @broadwaybabyto It is the clawing back of funds, which I class as a "cruel and unusual punishment" that I find most odious.
Let people "get ahead" legally.
Don't dock the crumbs that people manage to get from elsewhere on a 1:1 ratio.
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
People who struggled for every penny years ago, and worked their way up to a comfortable position now, are uncomfortable seeing other people given the things they were struggling for.
They don't see the opportunities they had then that few people are giving out nowadays.
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
They're just bullies: cruelty is their purpose.
The best proof of this is that policy makers on that particular bandwagon are happily taking away nice things that are objectively free, or even negative cost to society. E.g. affordable housing.
Voting for bullies is stupid, or evil (usually both).
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto @ChrisMayLA6 The reality is that poverty (and most homelessness) is government ‘policy’.
Considering Norway has eliminated homelessness through policy to help the less fortunate, all other G20 governments should hang their heads in shame
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto the persecution of the poor is interesting, as there is a viewpoint that the poor have done something to deserve it.
This is despite 2 truths
1 society is rigged against the poor- paying more than the rich for the same things
2 the same factor thst makes people poor is the same factor that makes people rich- luck -
@broadwaybabyto @ChrisMayLA6 The reality is that poverty (and most homelessness) is government ‘policy’.
Considering Norway has eliminated homelessness through policy to help the less fortunate, all other G20 governments should hang their heads in shame
Agreed....
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto My housemate is disabled, and the government is making her jump through all the hoops to the point that she spends tens of hours a week doing bureaucracy just to prove to them that she is worthy of the pittance that they are giving her.
It is fucking cruel, and degrades us all as a society for allowing them to be treated with so little dignity.
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto Someone told me once that the key to understanding the conservative/right/rich ideology is that it all stems from the idea that rich people are rich due to their virtues and that being rich is virtuous, and poor people are poor due to their failings and being poor is a failing.
After that day to me, all govt policies suddenly make perfect sense as to why the performative cruelty is so important to those who propose and support them. -
@broadwaybabyto I want to scream every time someone mentions the "nice cellphone" that a homeless person has, as if the $150 they spent on the cheapest smartphone they could find would have made them not homeless if spent on rent instead
@fluffy @broadwaybabyto also, in the UK now, we need celphones, or mobile phones as we call them here, to manage beneifits claims. so they are a must have.
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto "B-b-b-but what if someone who doesn't deserve it gets it??"
Okay, wanna talk about things being taken by people who don't deserve it? Got a big list, you'll definitely know some of them and every one of them are wealthy.
"Oh but they earned it, these welfare cheats are scamming us all and living better than I do with my money!"
No, they didn't earn it, you just chose to give them the benefit of the doubt because you don't question that amount of money. They are the real cheats, the biggest recipients of government money, pay the least in and the real reason you live so poorly.
Maybe the rich people with their decadence on your dime are simply people you envy while the poor are people you'd loathe to be given how you treat them.
-
@broadwaybabyto the persecution of the poor is interesting, as there is a viewpoint that the poor have done something to deserve it.
This is despite 2 truths
1 society is rigged against the poor- paying more than the rich for the same things
2 the same factor thst makes people poor is the same factor that makes people rich- luck@ScotInTraining @broadwaybabyto It's an effective strategy employed by the wealthy, one that's been going for a while. The poor and those in need of support are there because they're bad with money and can't be trusted to maintain their own finances. Of course that leads to said people also being scammers and lazy yet making a lot of money from the system, got to get some of that Catholic work ethic going to encourage the guilt.
These two aspects run counter to the truths you mention, people being in those positions due to issues outside their control and not having the wealth to get preferential treatment and the protections it provides. There's also the secondary truth that the more wealth is concentrated in fewer hands means less for others and kicking down is more easy on the knees than punching up because the gap is that vast.
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto
"Hearts starve as well as bodies: Give us Bread, but give us Roses." -
@fluffy @broadwaybabyto I remember such comments being made about single parents on low incomes in the UK in the 1980s owning VHS players.
In terms of providing entertainment/distraction for your children the economics of a video player (whether bought honestly or "second hand") were hard to beat.
A trip to the cinema was out of the reach of many people. Videos could either be rented, copied or swapped which gave such families access to new films that they would otherwise not have had.
@the_wub@mastodon.social @fluffy@plush.city @broadwaybabyto@zeroes.ca killed the radio star, though
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto This crosses over with a number of other issues such as our appalling school meals (featured yet again on R4’s Food Programme this week) or care for the elderly etc etc. It’s as if the English see social provision as a form of charity to be given suspiciously reluctantly and grudgingly rather than as social duty.
-
@broadwaybabyto Someone told me once that the key to understanding the conservative/right/rich ideology is that it all stems from the idea that rich people are rich due to their virtues and that being rich is virtuous, and poor people are poor due to their failings and being poor is a failing.
After that day to me, all govt policies suddenly make perfect sense as to why the performative cruelty is so important to those who propose and support them.@aj @broadwaybabyto Ah, the basic tenants of Calvinism. The rich are the "elect."
-
@broadwaybabyto Dutch law does not allow parents to gift groceries to children if these children live on social security.
If they do, the social security income can be demanded back (which of course nobody can do because you need every fucking cent of it to survive).
Otherwise, the Netherlands is known as a tax haven (which the government denies). Companies can get away with just about anything.@edgeofeurope @broadwaybabyto Calvinist mentality in an otherwise fairly liberal society. Strange.
-
@edgeofeurope @broadwaybabyto Calvinist mentality in an otherwise fairly liberal society. Strange.
@bouriquet @broadwaybabyto we are calvinists before anything else
-
People who are disabled, poor or on fixed incomes should be allowed nice things.
Society acts as though anyone receiving assistance should be forced to make do with the bare minimum ALL the time.
It’s suffering as a policy choice.
It’s cruel and unnecessary.
@broadwaybabyto People who are disabled or poor should have the nicest things. They should want for nothing. The result is that there would be no poverty and those with disabilities will be able to live free and full lives. How is this bad?
-
@broadwaybabyto This crosses over with a number of other issues such as our appalling school meals (featured yet again on R4’s Food Programme this week) or care for the elderly etc etc. It’s as if the English see social provision as a form of charity to be given suspiciously reluctantly and grudgingly rather than as social duty.
This is true in the USA, too. If you're poor, you must also be undeserving of pleasure, comfort, or ease.
"suspiciously reluctantly and grudgingly" is poetry. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" is nearly as good.
And it's EXPENSIVE to be poor. But that's another whole rant/rabbit hole.
