Why does "fiscal discipline" always seem to begin and end

[prolesunited]

with cutting programs for the poor?

[tularetom]

1. I don't know but everytime I see

a thread like this or read how badly Katrina vicitms are getting screwed I'm reminded of this little gem of an exchange from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I":

Senator: Oh, fellow Members of the Roman Senate, hear me! Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose, and build decent housing for the poor? How does the Senate vote?
Senators: Fuck the poor!
Senator: Good.

seriously, I think it's because the chickenshit politicians of all political persuasions know the poor cannot fight back nor can they afford to hire high powered lobbyists to make their case (and make payoffs) on their behalf.

[Appalachian_American]

2. free ride

And why are the poor always the ones that are accused of being freeloaders looking for handouts?

I was in a public library recently and overheard a conversation between an elderly lady and some type of social worker or governmental worker who was apparently going over social security benefits or medicare benefits that were going to be changing soon. I heard the first lady she met with end the conversation with the fact that she guessed she could eat cat food if necessary to make ends meet. Then the next lady speaking with her started grumbling about not getting as much because she had savings. She was complaining about all the freeloaders that get everything given to them and how she worked hard all her life and because she had money saved she wasn't getting as much.

There was no complaints about tax cuts to the wealthy or corporate welfare or tax exemptions for religion or no-bid contracts for Halliburton. Just those damned poor people that get everything given to them.

[tirechewer]

3. It's a common misapprehension....

They were probably discussing SSI, Title 16 which is an income based program for the elderly, blind and disabled. There is a resource test, and there always has been since the program began in 1973. The amount of your benefits are based on resources, since the program was put in place to help individuals who were not covered by Social Security Title 2, or whose entitlements from regular Social Security were so low that they would need additional money from SSI in order to cover the expenses of their households and medical care. If that's what it was, it might have been a lawyer or advocate advising on benefits, since the Social Security Administration would have not been discussing the matter with their Claimants in a public place.

They may also have been discussing the new Medicare prescription plan which was designed as yet another subsidy for the pharmaceutical companies who have been so generous to Bush. The plan is a disaster. It has a resource test which puts it out of the range of a lot of people who could use help with their medication, which traditional Medicare does not cover. The deductibles are high, and the premiums are high. Almost unobtainable if you are on a fixed income. It is a jumble of privatized crap strewn among many private sector health insurance companies who will administer it differently, and not for the benefit of the people who need it. It is confusing, deceptive and just plain bad. It also has a very low limit on the total amount of medication covered per year. If you are unfortunate enough to need a lot of different medications in order to survive, you are basically screwed.

The second woman has that grudging attitude that I really don't understand in people very well. Life is risky. Some of us are poor. Some of us can pull ourselves out of poverty; others never have a chance. But one common denominator among all human beings is that we are all going to need help sometime. We'll be caught in a disaster, or have a catastrophic illness or simply get too old to live without help. No one gets out of this live without some kind of terrible problem, even if it isn't obvious by observing them. That's just the way things are.

So instead of begrudging people help, why don't we try to empathize with them more? If the old woman had some money put aside, she was lucky, but if something else happens, that money will be gone faster than she thinks, and she will be left to depend on diminishing help from people like herself who seem to rubber stamp every effort the government makes to subsidize the rich at the expense of the poor.

I don't mind helping people who are having trouble. I don't mind helping people who never had a chance. What I do mind very much is subsidizing the very, very rich who could solve so many of society's problems if they simply paid their fair share of taxes. No outs, no tricks, no loopholes. It wouldn't even cause them to have to alter their lifestyles.

[prolesunited]

4. Thank you both for such thoughtful answers

Both such welcome additions to DU.