# On Welfare - a poem



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

A bit controversial, but I was inspired to write this after talking with a bleeding heart liberal acquaintance of mine.
View attachment welfare.pdf


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Uhh.. Post it in the thread. I'm not opening someone's PDF file on my computer. Especially someone with so few posts... You do know virii can be engraved in pdf's, right?


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

You actually use full Adobe Acrobat rather than the free reader or some other PDF viewer? Malware is only a concern in the full blown professional Acrobat.

Anyhow, I'll go ahead and paste it here and see what I can do about the limited formatting.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

*On Welfare*



If you really hate the poor,
..you know what you should do?

You should hand them out
..free food and clothes,
..and television too.

Prolong their vapid empty lives;
..in darkness let them stew.


You think this sounds too kindly;
..you think this can't be true?

Then think long and hard
..on what is worst
..of all the pain to brew.

Is it not the pleasures sought
..that in the end leaves few?


Undermine their confidence,
..and fill their mind with fear.

Trivialities
..to please and tease
..but only now and here.

With drugs and disorders many,
..keep all their minds unclear.


If you really hate the poor,
..you know what else you'd do?

You'd pack them in tight
..to homes of fright,
..kept in with TV glue.

Meaningful work they'd soon abhor—
..if work they ever knew.


"To work for someone else's gain,
..why would someone do that?"

"Tis wage slavery
..and besides that
..we've got kids and a cat."

So in cold and bitter envy,
..they'd grow lazy and fat.


Finally in lonely days
..they'd sigh "a life unlived."

Invisible chains,
..in empty shame,
..they'd cry "a life unlived!"

Too long their empty hollow lives;
..they'd die—a life unlived.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

@Shaolu 

I liked how you have structured it. The technique is good, and the usage of the aesthetic and rhythmic elements made it easy on the eyes. :happy:


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nicely written... But I'm a wage worker and don't feel that way lol Life is a lot more than how much you make. But it does remind me of many people in this area, especially those whom I KNOW make enough to get by, but waste it on beer and pot and then complain their job is shit and doesn't pay fairly. It's sad.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Nicely written... But I'm a wage worker and don't feel that way lol Life is a lot more than how much you make. But it does remind me of many people in this area, especially those whom I KNOW make enough to get by, but waste it on beer and pot and then complain their job is shit and doesn't pay fairly. It's sad.


Right, I'm a big believer in work-life balance and money is definitely not the most important thing in life. I also think that some kind of public assistance is appropriate for the disabled and otherwise truly in need. What I was thinking about with this poem was the general effect of the system as it is today. Our current system often enables people in a bad way. It demotivates them from truly succeeding in life.

It's one thing to live as a monk, be content with a low wage job, retire early, or otherwise de-prioritize making lots of money. It's another to fill your days with reality television and overeating while making every excuse in the book for why you can't engage in any productive endeavor--including hobbies--while subsisting on tax dollars.

I think one of the oft-overlooked aspects of the welfare debate is the effect it has on the people on it. It's not simply whether it's ethically viable to take resources from people by force (via taxes) to subsidize someone's life style--it's also the question of whether that life style is really even healthy and beneficial for the people subjected to it. Sometimes people are in less need of resources than they are motivation.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

If you really hate the poor, you'd keep their work hours under 32 hours a week so they won't be able to receive health insurance. You'd give them shifts at random days and times throughout the week so they aren't able to have a second job. You'd pay them such a shitty salary that it turns out that 44% of homeless people actually HAVE a job (National Coalition for the Homeless). You'd structure the world so that they need an expensive and time-consuming degree to secure most decently paying employment. Oh, and then if they actually did manage to get that degree, which is very difficult when you're barely scraping by without the time/money constraint of pursuing higher education, you'll tell them that degree is worthless because -- surprise! -- too many people have college degrees now, and many of them now are working the same low-wage jobs they were working before.

Then, when they go on welfare because it's the only option that actually allows them to have a decent standard of living, you'll call them "lazy," "empty-minded," and "gaming the system."

A life unlived, indeed.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

If you really hate the poor, you would outsource a ton of good jobs, and also hire illegals at slave wages and no worker's comp displacing American citizens.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> If you really hate the poor, you would outsource a ton of good jobs


I'm guessing by "outsource" you mean specifically offshore outsourcing, and your chief concern accordingly is the _American_ poor. Obviously, if we were to keep companies from employing foreign labor, then we would depriving job opportunities for poor people abroad.

Now, while if we're to take a purely nationalist perspective this becomes an understandable concern. Of course, even then we're missing the bigger picture here. Trading with foreign nations is a net gain for our society. While some jobs are destroyed in the process (domestically), overhead is reduced for the company, and with a healthy competitive market place that means lower prices for everyone.

What Politicians Don't Know About Outsourcing - Reason.com



Geoffrey Felis said:


> and also hire illegals at slave wages and no worker's comp


I'm confused what you mean by "slave" here, since slaves do not have "wages" by definition. Otherwise, as far as the "illegals" and the "no worker's comp" obviously that is and should be illegal.



Geoffrey Felis said:


> displacing American citizens.


You really think there's some massive amount of illegal immigrants taking jobs Americans would do in droves? Sounds like Republican paranoia to me.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Maybe if you really hate the poor, you'd convince others to view them as some kind of object instead of the human beings they are, with their varied interests, dreams, motivations, and lives.

Lots of wealthier people live vapid lives and watch TV. And lots of poor people work. It's not clean cut and your poetic argument doesn't make sense to me. 

It irks me that the poor become scapegoats for all the "faults" of the upper classes. The poor are not the only ones who watch reality TV. They are not the only ones who consume resources (frankly...I'd guess that no matter how much a poor person ate--or how "fat" they get, they consume less resources than a rich person). 

Yes, the stigma of being poor or having to accept welfare benefits IS something that causes shame for many, and certainly could be demotivating. Especially because there are so many ridiculous projections focused on the poor who "step out of their means" and engage in the same activities that the upper classes do.

We all know that if people from the middle and upper classes had been born into the lower classes they would never engage in that kind of widespread materialism and consumerism...because it would be wrong for them until they reach the middle class, where it would suddenly change into a badge of nobility. 

Yes...welfare has problems, as does our current economic system. No...welfare isn't the cause of the consumption of reality TV and over-eating.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

thismustbetheplace said:


> If you really hate the poor, you'd keep their work hours under 32 hours a week so they won't be able to receive health insurance. You'd give them shifts at random days and times throughout the week so they aren't able to have a second job. You'd pay them such a shitty salary that it turns out that 44% of homeless people actually HAVE a job (National Coalition for the Homeless). You'd structure the world so that they need an expensive and time-consuming degree to secure most decently paying employment. Oh, and then if they actually did manage to get that degree, which is very difficult when you're barely scraping by without the time/money constraint of pursuing higher education, you'll tell them that degree is worthless because -- surprise! -- too many people have college degrees now, and many of them now are working the same low-wage jobs they were working before.


I think these are all legitimate concerns, and I think a big part of the problem boils down to job scarcity and an overall dwindling economy which is due in no small part to excessive government regulation and market manipulation within a corrupt system of corporate bailouts and subsidies. The high cost of college tuition, for instance, can easily be attributed to the misuse of grants and other financial aid to fund administrative overhead which in turn is expanded because of the need for keeping the institution in line with state and federal regulations.

Pop Quiz: Why Are Tuitions So High? - Investors.com



thismustbetheplace said:


> Then, when they go on welfare because it's the only option that actually allows them to have a decent standard of living, you'll call them "lazy," "empty-minded," and "gaming the system."
> 
> A life unlived, indeed.


Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that may be some implied criticism of my own sentiments. In that regard, I'd just like to make it clear that I don't personally believe everyone on welfare is inherently lazy. Certainly in some scenarios it can only make sense to choose public assistance when facing the realities of a failing economy. When children are then raised in this system and accept it as normal, that's when it gets _really_ sad.

It's too bad we don't have more Workfare systems where people can actually retain a measure of dignity and benefit society in the process. Of course there are certain factions in our nation that would rather keep people dependent, subdued, and sedated.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

meltedsorbet said:


> Maybe if you really hate the poor, you'd convince others to view them as some kind of object instead of the human beings they are, with their varied interests, dreams, motivations, and lives.
> 
> Lots of wealthier people live vapid lives and watch TV. And lots of poor people work. It's not clean cut and your poetic argument doesn't make sense to me.


The argument (if it can really even be called that) is more in regards to the end goal. In my view, a lot of powers that be would love to keep people subdued and subserviant, so they can tell them what to think and who to vote for. You're absolutely right that it's not clean cut, and I think the same agenda is effected across people of all classes.

It's simply my view that the poor are impacted all the more, and a culture of dependence born out of public assistance is no small part of it. 



meltedsorbet said:


> It irks me that the poor become scapegoats for all the "faults" of the upper classes. The poor are not the only ones who watch reality TV. They are not the only ones who consume resources (frankly...I'd guess that no matter how much a poor person ate--or how "fat" they get, they consume less resources than a rich person).


Sure. Corporate welfare is arguably even more terrible. Of course, it doesn't have the same cultural impact, which leads into the next point...



meltedsorbet said:


> Yes, the stigma of being poor or having to accept welfare benefits IS something that causes shame for many, and certainly could be demotivating. Especially because there are so many ridiculous projections focused on the poor who "step out of their means" and engage in the same activities that the upper classes do.


Yes, that demotivating factor is largely what I was trying to address in the poem. The system is a trap that captures poor people in a wide net and keeps them there. It's hard for many people to get off welfare once they're on it.



meltedsorbet said:


> We all know that if people from the middle and upper classes had been born into the lower classes they would never engage in that kind of widespread materialism and consumerism...because it would be wrong for them until they reach the middle class, where it would suddenly change into a badge of nobility.
> 
> Yes...welfare has problems, as does our current economic system. No...welfare isn't the cause of the consumption of reality TV and over-eating.


I'm assuming the first quoted paragraph is tinged with irony. Assuming the point is that consumerism is terrible and people shouldn't be individually scrutinized for their purchases nonetheless, I agree. But that's part of the problem with supporting some by _forcing_ others to share, isn't it? Human nature being what it is, people are going to want to know what their money is going towards. Especially when it was touted as something so terribly important that it required them giving up said money by force via taxation.

Now, to your next point, yes. I wasn't attempting to imply some causal link, but rather paint a particular picture of a terrible goal. Public assistance is the center part of that picture in the poem, but the other things mentioned are peripheral elements which are hopefully accomplished in tandem with government assistance. More directly, the proliferation of mass media, a broken school system, and a lot of miscellaneous cultural mileau has more to do with the actual cause of why people disengage their brains and waste their lives. I simply have this vague intution in my personal experience that, yet again, the poor are disproportionately impacted by this trend and a culture of dependency that works all the more effectively when people are demotivated from doing something productive.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Fair points in the poem but I _HATE_ how people think the whole thing is some kind of rigid polar divide.

'Oh I was talking some some bleeding-heart _liberal_'.

It's the same as me protesting against female oppression because of '_all_ Muslims'.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

By the way, all you're really criticising here is the welfare system.

Welfare or not, there is still imbalance and inequality in the world, and it needs to be sorted one way or another.

Maybe we should stop providing for the poorer masses and wait for their uprising instead. No really, that might actually be better in the long run. Or maybe it's inevitable anyway.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Shaolu said:


> Right, I'm a big believer in work-life balance and money is definitely not the most important thing in life. I also think that some kind of public assistance is appropriate for the disabled and otherwise truly in need. What I was thinking about with this poem was the general effect of the system as it is today. Our current system often enables people in a bad way. It demotivates them from truly succeeding in life.
> 
> It's one thing to live as a monk, be content with a low wage job, retire early, or otherwise de-prioritize making lots of money. It's another to fill your days with reality television and overeating while making every excuse in the book for why you can't engage in any productive endeavor--including hobbies--while subsisting on tax dollars.
> 
> I think one of the oft-overlooked aspects of the welfare debate is the effect it has on the people on it. It's not simply whether it's ethically viable to take resources from people by force (via taxes) to subsidize someone's life style--it's also the question of whether that life style is really even healthy and beneficial for the people subjected to it. Sometimes people are in less need of resources than they are motivation.


This is true, but I wouldn't say people living off the government lack motivation. They lack ethics. Plenty of them have motivation enough to have hobbies, and go on vacations, and have more kids. All at the expense of tax payers, of course. I understand the mentally ill, the disabled and the elderly, but a 30 year old, healthy man or woman living off the government and not even trying to look for a job honestly disgusts me. Plenty of those around here and I can't wait for a new governor to come in and stop all this nonsense. These people do nothing to help the economy. The least they could do is go out and clean the streets.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Shaolu said:


> Yes, that demotivating factor is largely what I was trying to address in the poem. The system is a trap that captures poor people in a wide net and keeps them there. It's hard for many people to get off welfare once they're on it.


The problem here isn't lack of motivation. It's lack of jobs and especially lack of jobs that pay enough money. It's hard for many people to get off welfare once they're on it because, even if you can get a job, the wages that are being paid for many jobs are not enough to live on.

Also, fun fact, my mom actually works with people on welfare as part of her job, and many of them actually do work...off the books. Take from that what you will.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Shaolu said:


> I think these are all legitimate concerns, and I think a big part of the problem boils down to job scarcity and an overall dwindling economy which is due in no small part to excessive government regulation and market manipulation within a corrupt system of corporate bailouts and subsidies. The high cost of college tuition, for instance, can easily be attributed to the misuse of grants and other financial aid to fund administrative overhead which in turn is expanded because of the need for keeping the institution in line with state and federal regulations.


No, the dwindling economy is due to rich people taking it all for themselves. If you look at reports, rich people are doing just fine and have actually made a profit off this recession. The stock market is better than ever. But the rest of us down here are still being fucked in the ass by this economy every day.

We don't need corporate bailouts and subsidies, but we do need regulation. Especially because the planet is probably going to kill us all in 50 years because it's had enough of our shit. Without regulation you end up with kids being born with birth defects, species going extinct, and workers being forced to work long hours for low pay, because most corporations have a psychopathic mentality and will be corrupt as possible if it's going to turn them a profit. We've seen it before...back in the 1800s. Do you really want us to go back to the 1800s, dude?

College tuitions are so high because colleges can get away with them being so high. We have a society that touts a college degree as the way to success and so people are like lemmings jumping off the cliff and miring themselves in debt to get a degree that usually turns out not to be all that useful anyway. If colleges were really in need of all that money they wouldn't also have endowments in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does the government also require presidents of colleges to get paid two million dollars per year?



> When children are then raised in this system and accept it as normal, that's when it gets _really_ sad.


It also is really sad when children are raised in poverty and told implicitly throughout their lives that they will never amount to anything no matter how hard they work. Many poor kids who do well in high school can't go to college because they can't even afford the APPLICATION FEES (which run $50-$100 per college).



> It's too bad we don't have more Workfare systems where people can actually retain a measure of dignity and benefit society in the process. Of course there are certain factions in our nation that would rather keep people dependent, subdued, and sedated.


It's also too bad that corporations prefer to give their top executives more money than they could ever spend in 50 lifetimes instead of paying the workers who actually keep their company running a livable wage.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shaolu said:


> The argument (if it can really even be called that) is more in regards to the end goal. In my view, a lot of powers that be would love to keep people subdued and subserviant, so they can tell them what to think and who to vote for. You're absolutely right that it's not clean cut, and I think the same agenda is effected across people of all classes.
> 
> It's simply my view that the poor are impacted all the more, and a culture of dependence born out of public assistance is no small part of it.
> 
> ...


I can see how the poor could be disproportionately affected, but I don't believe it's because of taxes and public assistance. In the US, even though the working class and the poverty class provide plenty of service for society, they are generally stigmatized as freeloaders, criminals, welfare queens, ignorant, and lacking in moral values. 

Personally, coming from the working/poverty class and still belonging to that demographic, I've seen many of my family members depressed and unmotivated and it is sad. It's really sad. But I have different feelings about where that might be coming from. I think perhaps it comes from ignoring most of the contributions of the lower classes and instead slapping them with these caricatures that suck blood from every flaw of a lower class person. Certainly, the contribution of these classes isn't validated by decent pay or things like universal health care. And most of the stories in the media aren't about working and poverty class people who are honest and doing back-breaking labor, but the magnifying glass is always focused on either a few unusual stories or on the flaws of average people. 

Poverty itself presents enough stresses that might affect motivation and bad choices. But then, you add the stigmas attached to welfare to it...people who come from solid working class families having to apply for public assistance and get treated (maybe implicitly) as if they are some freeloaders...when their families have practically been providing the slave labor that supports the backbone of society for generations. It's demoralizing. 

People don't just want handouts. We are social creatures and most people want to feel like valuable parts of society. It kind of reminds me of an old song by Tracy Chapman. It's blatantly sentimental, but it demonstrates some of my feelings about the issue and welfare. I see her saying "we can't receive any govt. relief" not as to say that people need more welfare...but that people might want "a way to make an honest living." Because govt. relief in the US is treated as a charity, which is demoralizing to the culture surrounding the backbone of society's workforce. It would be different if the society was more egalitarian.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

meltedsorbet said:


> People don't just want handouts. We are social creatures and most people want to feel like valuable parts of society.


Couldn't agree with you more, there.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

HAL said:


> Fair points in the poem but I _HATE_ how people think the whole thing is some kind of rigid polar divide.
> 
> 'Oh I was talking some some bleeding-heart _liberal_'.
> 
> It's the same as me protesting against female oppression because of '_all_ Muslims'.


Actually I was referring to a guy I've known for years. He literally goes out of his way to sympathize with murderers (e.g. "Jodi Arias seems like such a sweet girl..."), thinks The Young Turks is the greatest media outlet ever, and characterizes anyone with a modicum of fiscal conservatism as "Teabaggers" who "hate the poor."

I guess the only thing I regret is characterizing him as a "liberal" at all, since if you knew the guy you'd probably see him as an insult to liberals. He is most definitely "bleeding-heart" though. In the most inconsistent of ways too. He is staunchly against the death penalty, and yet he has claimed that people who abuse animals should "eat shit and die."

Anyhow, long story short, I don't believe that all fiscally liberal folks are irrational bleeding-heart types. Many just have a legitimately different understanding of economics and fiscal policy. Ironically enough, my own political views are of the Classically Liberal school.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shaolu said:


> Couldn't agree with you more, there.


So you might be able to see that being treated, as a class, as if we contribute almost nothing to society might be kind of upsetting? Especially since more commonly the class is associated with taking advantage of the "gifts" of taxpayers, because people utilize the social programs in place when the repayment for the jobs doesn't pay enough to take care of our elderly or our children...or our own health insurance or housing.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

meltedsorbet said:


> So you might be able to see that being treated, as a class, as if we contribute almost nothing to society might be kind of upsetting? Especially since more commonly the class is associated with taking advantage of the "gifts" of taxpayers, because people utilize the social programs in place when the repayment for the jobs doesn't pay enough to take care of our elderly or our children...or our own health insurance or housing.


I guess to answer your first question, I have to ask who comprises this "class"? Both rich and poor can take advantage of tax subsidies for their own private gain. Blaming the poor for taking a government handout would be just as ludicrous as blaming a company for doing the same. Both are acting within their own rational self-interest.

My original intent with my poem was not to blame the poor, but rather question whether simply giving them handouts was the best thing we can do for them. Likewise, I have to ask whether it's good for all of us to consider any organization "too big to fail" and continue shoring up failing corporations--or even giving any kind of special recognition to corporations at all.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I don't like metered poems. I think one of the best poems on the poor is Allen Ginsberg's_ America_, and that's in free verse. Also Tracy Chapman's _Talkin' About A Revolution._ I like the attempt. I think Chapman really nails it on the idea of lives wasted, while waiting in the unemployment line. I think if you threw in a Part II, then I think your ideas could be developed, especially about a life not lived. I like it more towards the end, it's like you're picking up steam, and that's why I think a Part II might be interesting. Good try. If you had several lines about the government being employed to not do their job, by SSA denying benefits to those who qualify for those benefits, exploring the absurd. People who get a paycheck for not doing their job, even though it is their job, that, would be a welfare poem. I've come to te conclusion that family is the only ones you can count on when times get rough.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Taking the bus and walking I have made a few casual friends that were homeless. They have love and friendship just like people of higher social classes. I don't see them as having a life wasted but a life neglected by a supposedly civilized society. 

We really have an out of control corporate environment in the U.S. It was stock market derivatives primarily in the real estate market that was the main factor in our great recession. Derivatives have turned the stock market into Las Vagas. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
reignb

If we don't reign in big business our socioeconomic structure is going to look like Mexico. 

.


----------



## Elveni (Feb 22, 2012)

Nice poem! I like the biting undercurrent.

My mother raised my three siblings and I on welfare while dealing with my alcoholic father. She decided she wanted a better life for us, so she worked full-time (on minimum wage), went to school full-time (on Pell Grant), took out loans to support to us and endured a lot of shit. A few years ago she graduated with a Bachelor's and got a job as a social worker that pays so poorly that I ended up qualifying for the same Pell Grant she received. 

As for whether or not "hand-outs" are the best policy, I think it is unclear. Sometimes providing welfare is a good investment, sometimes it is providing an unnecessary crutch. Since I'm attending college on the dime of both private scholarship and federal/state aid, I suppose I tend to think it is a worthwhile investment.

But anecdote aside, I don't think your poem takes a staunchly anti-liberal stance. I'm currently taking up an internship with a Democratic politician and I can admit that I get disgusted with the amount or irrational liberalism that surrounds me (not from the politician, but from my peers). Is it really too hard to have a balanced opinion?

I'm essentially a moderate who identifies as Democrat because most conservatives in my country are nauseatingly insane.


----------



## Elveni (Feb 22, 2012)

Shaolu said:


> I guess to answer your first question, I have to ask who comprises this "class"? Both rich and poor can take advantage of tax subsidies for their own private gain. Blaming the poor for taking a government handout would be just as ludicrous as blaming a company for doing the same. Both are acting within their own rational self-interest.
> 
> My original intent with my poem was not to blame the poor, but rather question whether simply giving them handouts was the best thing we can do for them. Likewise, I have to ask whether it's good for all of us to consider any organization "too big to fail" and continue shoring up failing corporations--or even giving any kind of special recognition to corporations at all.


I agree with you to an extent, but there is a pretty fatal flaw in your reasoning; you assume that the poor understand what they're doing. The wealthy, well-educated and trained to act in their self-interest, have an understanding of economic policy and the history of class struggle/dominance. The poor are sent to shitty schools that teach them nothing and prepare them for shitty jobs.

That is, of course, not to say there aren't economically disadvantaged people who don't purposefully game the system. They're there, but I wouldn't say they're the standard. Wealthy fucks who intentionally manipulate others, however, are the standard.

To put my opinion in a really simple metaphor, I equate the wealthy/poor relationship with the same relationship between two siblings. The older sibling, though perhaps equally at fault as the younger sibling for starting an argument, will still receive more blame from the parent because they know better and are expected to behave with more consideration for others.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

Elveni said:


> I agree with you to an extent, but there is a pretty fatal flaw in your reasoning; you assume that the poor understand what they're doing. The wealthy, well-educated and trained to act in their self-interest, have an understanding of economic policy and the history of class struggle/dominance. The poor are sent to shitty schools that teach them nothing and prepare them for shitty jobs.
> 
> That is, of course, not to say there aren't economically disadvantaged people who don't purposefully game the system. They're there, but I wouldn't say they're the standard. Wealthy fucks who intentionally manipulate others, however, are the standard.
> 
> To put my opinion in a really simple metaphor, I equate the wealthy/poor relationship with the same relationship between two siblings. The older sibling, though perhaps equally at fault as the younger sibling for starting an argument, will still receive more blame from the parent because they know better and are expected to behave with more consideration for others.


Great point. That's why I have much more sympathy for people on welfare than fat cats on corporate welfare. I still think welfare should ultimately be substitued with a government jobs program--as well as fostering a free market that doesn't require it as much in the first place. In regards to corporate welfare, however, that should be terminated with prejudice. I might take the suggestion from @Brian1 and write a part II of sorts in that regard.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shaolu said:


> I guess to answer your first question, I have to ask who comprises this "class"? Both rich and poor can take advantage of tax subsidies for their own private gain. Blaming the poor for taking a government handout would be just as ludicrous as blaming a company for doing the same. Both are acting within their own rational self-interest.
> 
> My original intent with my poem was not to blame the poor, but rather question whether simply giving them handouts was the best thing we can do for them. Likewise, I have to ask whether it's good for all of us to consider any organization "too big to fail" and continue shoring up failing corporations--or even giving any kind of special recognition to corporations at all.


I suppose I just meant the class that hovers around poverty...the chronically poor or lower working class. From personal experience, there can be mixed families within the working and poverty class. Working class people are sometimes on welfare, or may have family members in and out of shelters for a time, perhaps because it's easier to fall into poverty from the working class. 

I do see a distinction between poor people taking handouts and companies doing it. There's a difference between being motivated to care for loved ones with inadequate means, and being motivated to turn a profit. However it's kind of an interesting comparison.

I think the part of your poem that threw me off was about here:

"Meaningful work they'd soon abhor—
..if work they ever knew.

"To work for someone else's gain,
..why would someone do that?"

"Tis wage slavery
..and besides that
..we've got kids and a cat."

So in cold and bitter envy,
..they'd grow lazy and fat." 

In the beginning of your poem, you are speaking from the position of what seems like a policy maker or a random critic...giving satirical advice about what to do if we hate poor people. But in the above section, you switch to seemingly try to represent the perspective or the voice of people who receive welfare. It could be a funny caricature if it was more obvious as one.

Also..."to work for someone else's gain...why would someone do that?" It's an interesting question. 

Many people "work for someone else's gain" because the others gain is just a side effect of getting a pay check (I'm pretty sure that's a common motivation for working). However, you can also work because you believe in what you are doing, and you enjoy contributing to society in that way. 

And I don't think being on welfare will somehow make people unable to see the value of that. The same question could be placed in the lips of the disgruntled tax payer who doesn't want his money to go to the disadvantaged. As it could a CEO who's focusing on his profit margin. In some ways, the poor tend to work for "someone elses gain" more than others, and so it seems odd that it would be portrayed as a "wrong" question in their hands... 

It seems to me that you are criticizing an intention that shouldn't be allotted to the poor, but to individuals within many rungs of society. That is why I tend to take issue with caricatures of the poor, because I see them as scape goats or whipping boys many times.

Anyway...thank you for explaining your motivations and feelings about this. It's an interesting poem and I hope that my feedback wasn't too misdirected or rough--thanks for considering it. I am going to turn in now.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Nauseating political content aside I think much of your verse here just doesn't work very well. I can see that you've put some thought into the rhythm and structure but I think this aspect of the poem is too restrictive and holds it back. Many of the rhymes are forced and it would probably be better as free verse (rhyming poems are really hard to do well without being cheesy). It's also overly polemical and didactic, which is not really what people are looking for in a poem. There are political tracts for that. The style doesn't really fit the content, its about a contemporary issue but the syntax sounds like an 19th century aristocrat ("Meaningful work they would soon abhor/if work they ever knew"). This disconnect is particularly jarring when contemporary things like TV are referenced. I thought "packed in with TV glue" was a decent metaphor, and the repetition at the end is not a bad way to close, but the syntax issue is very jarring there. 

I think the main problem I have with the poem is the style not fitting the content. This seems like it should be written from the perspective of a hard-bitten, misanthropic Bukowski type, and written in that sort of voice, but the style brings to mind more of a fedora wearing smuglord who would lecture you about how superior Bach is to Justin Bieber or something. If you're interested in improving it I would suggest thinking about what feelings or ideas you're trying to convey and then think about what kind of style and voice would be most appropriate for engendering that response in the reader. And if it's a political or social idea you are trying to get across, be less obvious about it and frame it in a more poetic way than just a list of rhyming conservative talking points. "The Second Coming" by Yeats is a more oblique example of this, many of Berrtol Brecht's poems are good examples of how more polemical political poetry can be done well.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Think about oppression...

welfare a recession depression
bourgeoisie stuffing bloats
oppression
a knife acting the blade widening the divide
slicing all the big little throats


hmm... just some thoughts to think along with your welfare poem


----------

