This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#221212 by DainNobody
Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:24 pm
WHAT WERE POORHOUSES?
the Poorhouse Story
(often also called Poor Farms -- and several similar terms --
or referred to with the older term -- Almshouses)

Poorhouses were tax-supported residential institutions to which people were required to go if they could not support themselves. They were started as a method of providing a less expensive (to the taxpayers) alternative to what we would now days call "welfare" - what was called "outdoor relief" in those days. People requested help from the community Overseer of the Poor ( sometimes also called a Poor Master) - an elected town official. If the need was great or likely to be long-term, they were sent to the poorhouse instead of being given relief while they continued to live independently. Sometimes they were sent there even if they had not requested help from the Overseer of the Poor. That was usually done when they were found guilty of begging in public, etc.

[One misconception should be cleared up here; they were not technically "debtors' prisons." Someone could owe a great deal of money, but if they could still provide themselves with the necessities for remaining independent they might avoid the poorhouse.]

BEFORE POORHOUSES
the Poorhouse Story

Prior to the establishment of poorhouses the problem of what to do with paupers in a community was dealt with in one of three ways:

Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds.


Auctioning off the Poor: People who could not support themselves (and their families) were put up for bid at public auction. In an unusual type of auction, the pauper was sold to the lowest bidder (the person who would agree to provide room and board for the lowest price) -- usually this was for a specific period of a. year or so. The person who got the contract got the use of the labor of the pauper for free in return for feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for the pauper and his/her family. This was actually a form of indentured servitude. It sounds a lot like slavery -- except that it was technically not for the pauper's entire lifetime. And it had many of the perils of slavery. The welfare of the paupers depended almost entirely upon the kindness and fairness of the bidder. If he was motivated only by a desire to make the maximum profit off the "use" of the pauper, then concern for "the bottom line" might result in the pauper being denied adequate food, or safe and comfortable shelter, or even necessary medical treatment. And there often was very little recourse for protection against abuse. (See scan of an authentic record of an auction in 1832 in Sandown NH.)


Contracting with someone in the community to care for Paupers: In this situation the care of a group of paupers was delegated to the person(s) who would contract to provide care at, again, the lowest price. This system allowed the opportunity for somewhat better supervision as indicated in the terms of the contract -- which might specify what minimum standard of care must be provided and that community officers would do inspections, etc. There were still often the same opportunities for abuse that were noted above.

Note: In some cases (before state laws began to require the establishment of County Poorhouses) local communities had already discovered that a place to house paupers helped reduce the cost of poor relief. These small town poorhouses were the prototypes for the later state-required county poorhouses. Those earlier poorhouses often instituted the use of an adjacent farm on which the paupers could work to raise their own food, thus making the houses more self-sufficient (relying less on local tax funds). That is how the term "poor farm" came into being.


THE BEGINNING of the COUNTY POORHOUSE SYSTEM
the Poorhouse Story

During the second quarter of the 19th century, as the industrial revolution had its effect on the United States, the importation of the factory system from England was followed almost immediately by the full scale adoption of what seemed to be an inherent component of that system -- the Poorhouse System. These poorhouses were built with great optimism. They promised to be a much more efficient and cheaper way to provide relief to paupers. And there was a fervent popular belief that housing such people in institutions would provide the opportunity to reform them and cure them of the bad habits and character defects that were assumed to be the cause of their poverty.

1824 LAW -- ESTABLISHING COUNTY POORHOUSES IN NY

INDENTURE BOND for 7 year old boy -- 1835

NEWSPAPER NOTICE -- Opening of a County Poorhouse -- 1827

ARTICLES OF VENDUE (Terms of Auction) of the POOR -- 1832

CORRESPONDENCE Between Towns Disputing Legal "Settlement" (Residence)

POORHOUSE RULES & REGULATIONS -- Orange County NY -- 1831


THE DISILLUSIONMENT
the Poorhouse Story

By mid-century, people were beginning to question the success of the poorhouse movement. Investigations were launched to examine the conditions in poorhouses. They had proven to be much more expensive than had been anticipated. And they had not significantly reduced the numbers of the "unworthy poor" nor eliminated the need for "outdoor relief". [ This was public assistance given to those living outside the poorhouses. It was given somewhat grudgingly to those considered to be (perhaps!) more "worthy" poor --who might only briefly and temporarily require assistance to procure food or fuel or clothing when they fell on very short-term hard times.]

THE CIVIL WAR
the Poorhouse Story

But the Civil War was the major preoccupation of American society during the third quarter of the century. Major systematic changes in social welfare policy had to await calmer times. Ironically, the faltering poorhouse system was sheltered from the impact of the poverty produced by the war itself. The war created widows and orphans; and it deprived elderly members of families of the support they might have had in their old age, had their sons and grandsons lived or remained able to work. While many looked forward to the time ... "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again"... many soldiers limped home to be disabled for the rest of their lives. However, a relatively small proportion of these casualties of the war ever wound up living in poorhouses.

The poorhouses were spared this circumstance for two reasons. Special laws were passed requiring that any needed assistance to veterans and their families had to be provided as outdoor relief -- specifically prohibiting placement in the poorhouse. And the Civil War Pension Plan provided -- although belatedly and awkwardly and controversially -- for soldiers and their family members. (An entire book could be devoted to this -- and it has been!)

THE TRANSITION
the Poorhouse Story

By 1875, after the regulation of poorhouses in most states became the responsibility of the State Board of Charities, laws were passed prohibiting children from residing in poorhouses and removing mentally ill patients and others with special needs to more appropriate facilities.

The poorhouse population was even more narrowly defined during the twentieth century when social welfare legislation (Workman’s Compensation, Unemployment benefits and Social Security) began to provide a rudimentary “safety net” for people who would previously have been pauperized by such circumstances. Eventually the poorhouses evolved almost exclusively into nursing homes for dependent elderly people. But poorhouses left orphanages, general hospitals and mental hospitals -- for which they had provided the prototype -- as their heritage.

#221218 by Starfish Scott
Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:38 am
Ooh there is some good "sad" in this..hmmm back to the notebook.

lol (scribble-scribble-scribble)

#221219 by DainNobody
Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:24 am

#221282 by MikeTalbot
Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:08 am
Watching westerns as I grew up I always figured that if I were dirt poor and nobody liked me - it would be logical to become an outlaw! (never claimed I was smart)

Then I got to thinking (at last) and wondered - so how do they obtain those horses, tack, guns, boots and money to gamble and buy booze? The first time...?

oh...

Well f**k it then. Guess I'll find a job.

Talbot

#221292 by Starfish Scott
Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:02 am
Remember they hang horse thieves.

And hanging isn't fun, I'll gladly take the bullet.

#221302 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:36 am
Dane Ellis Allen wrote:like Dear Ole Obama said, "nobody should have to go broke by getting sick" I say let the Larry Ellisons and others of his ilk, that enjoy accumulating riches and thus hoarding the money supply, pay for the underclass in our society who have not a fair playing field to compete on..


Dane,

Can you name even one time that Obama told you something true?

You are a fool if you think any politician, left or right, gives a damn about you.

You have bought their lie hook, line, and sinker. They are counting on people like you to actually believe that bull. It is designed to pit you against "rich people" (the middle class who go to work, or at least used to) and NOTHING else.

What Obamacare is proposing is full-blown Communism. You really ought to talk to a Ukrainian, Polish, Lithuanian, East German, or Romanian. They will make the stories out Canada look like a children's fairy tale in comparison.


Fools in America are going to find out soon but it will be too late. This is not about caring for anyone, it's about complete control over your HEALTH. You are really going to trust the decision of life or death in the hands of politician, or a political bureaucracy?

I've been saying it since August 2008. This is the end. Enjoy it while you still can.







.

#222065 by crunchysoundbite
Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:17 am
Starfish Scott wrote:If you don't like it, run for office.

Else your political diatribe is about as useless as ever.

Do you think that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" in this case or just IGNORED? Be realistic.
Thought you "Weren't into politics". If not, this just demonstrates you're looking for trouble.

#222098 by Slacker G
Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:39 pm
yod wrote:
Dane Ellis Allen wrote:like Dear Ole Obama said, "nobody should have to go broke by getting sick" I say let the Larry Ellisons and others of his ilk, that enjoy accumulating riches and thus hoarding the money supply, pay for the underclass in our society who have not a fair playing field to compete on..


Dane,

Can you name even one time that Obama told you something true?

You are a fool if you think any politician, left or right, gives a damn about you.

You have bought their lie hook, line, and sinker. They are counting on people like you to actually believe that bull. It is designed to pit you against "rich people" (the middle class who go to work, or at least used to) and NOTHING else.

What Obamacare is proposing is full-blown Communism. You really ought to talk to a Ukrainian, Polish, Lithuanian, East German, or Romanian. They will make the stories out Canada look like a children's fairy tale in comparison.


Fools in America are going to find out soon but it will be too late. This is not about caring for anyone, it's about complete control over your HEALTH. You are really going to trust the decision of life or death in the hands of politician, or a political bureaucracy?

I've been saying it since August 2008. This is the end. Enjoy it while you still can.







.


Already they are mailing letters to parents telling them that their children are too fat and that they have to do something about it. Your health care provider will be required to get you into a weight loss program soon and you will pay heavy penalties if you do not, just like smokers and other groups that the busybodies want to target.

Doesn't sound like Communism to me.... they're "just concerned".

#222180 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:41 pm
Slacker is calling it. I read through this thread, and I have never read so many anti American responses.

FREEDOM IS A RESPONSIBILITY!

All I see is a bunch of wimps that wants a big government to cover their asses.

GET YOUR FUUUCKKING BIG GOVERNMENT STEALING MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS HARD WORKING PEOPLE HANDS OUT OF HERE.

I can't believe some of the posts here.

STEALING IS WRONG.

YOUR GOVERNMENT .... YOUR GOVERNMENT...

Is stealing from you, and you show no anger...
:( :lol:

#222289 by gbheil
Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:04 pm
Called an exchange because you exchange healthcare for slavery.

#222293 by jimmydanger
Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:25 pm
Our governor (a Republican!) just signed a law that will add millions of people to the Medicare rolls. These are typically people who aren't poor but aren't middle class either, who couldn't otherwise afford health care. It's clear that something had to be done about health care in this country, and the Republicans have offered no solutions. I give the president props for standing by his convictions and making the hard decisions, even if unpopular.

#222312 by gbheil
Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:10 pm
Convicted he should be . . . then hanged.

Don't matter what party you affiliate yourself with, you can still be a lying thieving douche bag.

#222390 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:22 pm
jimmydanger wrote:Our governor (a Republican!) just signed a law that will add millions of people to the Medicare rolls. These are typically people who aren't poor but aren't middle class either, who couldn't otherwise afford health care. It's clear that something had to be done about health care in this country, and the Republicans have offered no solutions. I give the president props for standing by his convictions and making the hard decisions, even if unpopular.



I have some general area of agreement to what you just said. However, I think it's naive to assume that O-care was ever designed to save anyone but bankers and the insurance companies behind them. When it's all said and done, every person in America will be paying into a national insurance fund at a higher policy rate than ever before; and that will be the "new" fund that politician raid since they've already stolen Social Security money, which btw, was designed to cover health-care expenses for the elderly.


And MSNBC has never reported the truth but the GOP did, in fact, offer several alternative ideas when this albatross was being discussed.

But do you not remember that they were locked out in Congress? The "progressives" ( a misnomer if there ever was one) literally locked the doors and voted on something that they admitted to never having read. They had the majority and therefore ignored the law.

Most Americans, including the Tea Party, want a solution to the problem of an aging population who doesn't have the money to cover health expenses, but our representatives were locked out of the debate and not allowed to offer ideas, much less solutions.

And O didn't "make the hard decisions" because that would imply some legality to how this was handled. No, he used political tricks and vague loopholes in the law to skirt the will of Americans, who wanted a vigorous debate BEFORE a law was passed.

I realize this is not what the overwhelmingly liberal media told you about the opinion of most Americans, but it's the truth. All we ever wanted was the chance to explore every idea and then have our duly elected representatives vote on it. We were all betrayed by corrupt Dems and Republicans alike.

But the legal course was not allowed because the Dems knew that people would never support this bill because of the invasions of privacy, the beaurocratic control over people's very lives, the confiscation of fees/fines/tolls/taxes that every person (except for Congress) will have to pay, the loss of qualified medical personnel, the destruction of small businesses and therefore our entire economy.....and those are just the good points.

That ought to tell you what the Progressives (euphemism for Socialists) wanted. Ultimate totalitarian control of America's economy and, indeed, the power of life & death over every person.

This is pure fascism from a dictator.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests