Author Topic: Why are the poor, poor?  (Read 122630 times)

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #110 on: May 03, 2008, 07:06:20 pm »
Merci broketrash !

You say:
      Exactly, that is the type of thoughtful response that keeps a discussion going! I agree education is a key to understanding how to take control of one's life, whether you are a male of female. How many times many of us had wished that Ennis and Jack had more options.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread. Both women and men have to take responsibility for the decisions which lead to poverty. I especially like the "swift kick to the groin". Women need to stand up for their individual autonomy and not let skanky men dog them and then move on to the next victim. That man who dogs you is not going to help you with the baby. And there is the problem, we the tax payers get stuck with paying the bill for the work of the dog and the woman who allowed him in. "kick him in the groin" by all means.

You last sentence is especially correct, among heterosexual men, women hold the key!         

...............

Broketrash and others:
That sounds good. I am all for education. However, we need women and men to have kids !! ??
Yes??

Why is it that muslims men can have legally at least 4 wives SAME time, and we, can NOT ?? Fair??
Muslims are now same numbers as the Catholic religion (RC, protestants, etc.) !! So, there will be more poor in our democratic countries since a man can have only one wife, and one and a half kid ?? !!

Troubles, much more ahead !! ??

Au revoir, hugs!!

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #111 on: May 03, 2008, 07:11:39 pm »
Well, Friend Broketrash, I'm glad to know that at least the first part of my Friday morning post didn't offend you, but I guess I wasn't clear in my question because it appears you've missed my point.

What I am trying to ask you is, What is the basis of your faith that the states will assume the burden of welfare if the federal government is taken out of the picture? What makes you so sure it will even be a matter for debate if the federal government does get out of the way?

I'm not questioning whether or not debate on the subject is a good thing. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that your pet "federalism" theory might even be correct: Perhaps the states could do a better job of dealing with the issue than the federal government.

What I want to know is why you think they will or would do it. "Because the theory says they can" is not an answer to the question of whether or not they will.

You must understand that I have spent virtually my entire life in an old, industrial "rustbucket" state in the Northeast. Pennyslvania has one major city on each end of the state, and vast rural areas in between. The members of the state legislature go up to the state capital to look out for the interests of their constituents--which is good and proper.

What they also have is a sad history of failing to look out for the good of the state as a whole. I'm sure that individually the members of the Pennsylvania legislature are, in general, good, moral persons, but collectively as a legislature they would let the poor die of starvation in the streets of Philadelphia before they would tax their rural constituents to do anything to solve the problem of poverty in the state's major metropolitan areas.

A theory is not worth a warm bucket of spit if people do not have the political will to put it into practice. This is what I see lacking in all your "federalism" theories. I also question whether it is wise to assume that a theory that may have worked just fine among 13 scattered states with small populations strung out on the Eastern Seaboard in 1789 will necessarily work in a nation the size that the U.S. has become in the 21st century.

I'm afraid it just seems to me that you "federalists" are living in a fantasy world where people are of good will and will do the right thing for their fellow man because it is the right thing, and I just don't think that's realisitic. The federal government is needed now because the states will not protect the poor or the rights of minorities (why I feel that gay marriage will only come about as a result of federal action, but that's a topic for another thread).

As you read my post, you will notice that I said that I don't know how much of a burden individual states will take up. there will be 50 individual state solutions. Some will take up the entire burden that the feds currently shoulder, others may offer more creative solutions, some may sadly do nothing. It will be an "experimental laboratory" as to what works and what doesn't work. In the end, those states which make progress in eliminating an underclass problem, will be the winners and will attract investment and growth. So, the states will be motivated from the stand point of economic development to find creative solutions and lower the welfare rolls.

What is definite is that if we keep the present system, the problem of the underclass will NEVER GO AWAY.

FDR used the approach of an "experimental laboratory" (his words by the way) in order to end the economic crisis in the 1930's. He threw everything reasonable at the problem, some things worked, some didn't. His approach was nationwide, but this new federalist approach to solving the welfare crisis uses the 50 states as 50 laboratories and gets Washington DC out of the way and lets the states do the job that is their constitutional duty.

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #112 on: May 03, 2008, 07:15:00 pm »
Broketrash: merci as you say, and may I note that is likewise for most countries, letting themselves be experiments to gas warlords and others such criminals runing their economies !!

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #113 on: May 03, 2008, 07:17:06 pm »

... which I do not support. I think they're already tracking fathers down and forcing them to contribute -- though perhaps not effectively enough. But forceably sterilized? No. That would be unconstitutional, I think.


no it seems to be constitutional, several states either now or in the past have used enforced sterilizations on repeat sex offenders. it is only a new interpretation of the law to allow that the repeated fathering of children which the tax payers must support is a type of sexual offense. I am in favor of implementing such a program right now.

I bet that dead beat dads will cough up the money, if the consequences of not supporting their children is sterilization.

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #114 on: May 03, 2008, 07:21:42 pm »
And the next thing will be the sterilization of gay men?

And the unwanted females ?

And the unwanted others ?

Germany all over again ?

Such tools were used in Canada, the USA, etc., too !!

To me, the solution is for such men to be given decent jobs, and that part of his paycheck taken away !! ??
Maybe ??

Au revoir,
hugs!


Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #115 on: May 03, 2008, 07:25:54 pm »
And as for the "prison farm system," no need to revive it -- it is already alive and well at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, a working farm and, according to Wikipedia, once known as "the bloodiest prison in America." I don't think this would be quite the appropriate place for deadbeat dads, though. The average inmate in Angola, and 50 is considered a "short" sentence. Many die of old age there. In a famous incident in the 1950s, 31 inmates slashed their own Achilles' tendons to protest the hard work and brutality.


I don't advocate the type of brutal prison farm system that used to be in effect 50 years ago in LA or here in TX. (think of "Cool Hand Luke"  :'().

the present prison system simply incarcerates and accomplishes nothing, rehabilitation is a bad joke. with a humane prison farm, or prison work shop system the products produced by inmates, who would otherwise be idle, can be sold and used to support the families the men are refusing to support. men in those prison systems can also be allowed to save money to be used when they return to the civilian world. I would also add opportunities for the men to learn marketable technical skills and basic English and math skills, and a placement program to aid them when they emerge from prison. like the welfare system, the current prison systems just perpetuated the underclass and the burden they foist on the tax payers.

the penal system is just one more item on a long list of public programs that must change.

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #116 on: May 03, 2008, 07:29:54 pm »
Broketrash and others:

check out about such men taken to prison if they do not pay for child - that is now the thing in Ontario, Canada;
see if any results ?

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #117 on: May 03, 2008, 07:41:53 pm »
Quote from: injest on Today at 08:32:31 AM
Quote from broketrash
*Ahem*

The below is from the same website:

NOW MORE THAN EVER, America needs to get back to the conservative principles President Ronald Reagan believed in. That’s why The Heritage Foundation, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are challenging Americans to consider, What Would Reagan Do? (it has WWRD out to the side - like a What Would Jesus Do?)

View video greetings by Sean and Laura below.


So, from that alone I think Jess has a legitimate critique about this website's bias.


the question is not one of "bias", but how much research or serious scholarship is a part of the articles which scholars produce as a part of their work for the Heritage Foundation. If the research is done well and is noted by other serious scholars as being worth discussing, then blanket condemnation without an attempt to understand the context is out of place in a serious discussion.

"WWRD" may seem weird to you, but that is because you are not a conservative. Conservatives have very happy memories of Reagan, and think that many of the solutions which he offered back in the 1980's if fully carried out would solve many of the problems with the federal gov. The Heritage Foundation is not a stealth conservative organization, it is frankly conservative, and free market oriented. If there are those that do not wish to even wish consider that approach, then there really is point in having a discussion. If I were unwilling to even consider that gov at any level has a role to play in this issue, then there would also be no reason to have a discussion.

It is certainly a part of any ongoing debate to consider the sources of information, but to use blanket labelling and demonization is not a part of a serious discussion.
My point being, I simply will not engage discussion with anyone who can not take a discussion seriously, but insists on offering emotional anecdotal exemplars. There can be a place for that type of trivial debate, but not with a serious topic.

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #118 on: May 03, 2008, 07:54:12 pm »
Sorry, Broke.  Wthin a page and a half of reading, the article already made an assumption from the Census' records that it didn't state:

e.g.

From the article:  "Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Cen­sus Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."

One column down, the article says:

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning...His home is in good repair and not overcrowded..."

Huh?   ???  Excuse me?  How did the article writer know that?  Not from the Census bureau based on the information shown so far.  According to the article to this point, the Census Bureau only reported that a  percentage of the poor owned their own homes.  It said nothing about the condition of said homes.  And unless the U.S. Census is in the business of property inspections, I'm not sure how they would know.

I like the chart about the "Ownershp and Property of Consumer goods".  Hey, 91.3% of poor people have phones.  I know some who do.  They don't have service for those phones, but they have them.

Is the rest of the article going to have such misleading statements and useless charts as this?  I'm only one 1.5 pages into it and don't want to waste my time.

WARNING PERSONAL ANECDOTE:
My mother's cousin is poor.  But hey, she owns her own home.  The roof is falling in and she can't afford to fix it and the city is threatening to condemn it.  But she has no where else to go if they evict her.  She sank all her money in that home when she had some coming in and now she doesn't.

i.e.  She didn't start off poor, but she's ended up that way.

EDITED:  OK, at page 9 and the article states that the American Housing Survey tosses off structural instability and people living in hovels they're unable to repair with one sentence:

"However, the problems affecting these units are clearly modest...upkeep and the use of unvented oil, kerosene or gas heaters..."

I don't consider inability to keep up a home - a "modest" problem.  I wonder how low one has to go to be considered suffering and poor by this writer's standards?  Heating your food by a fireplace?  The only heating/cooking source in some people's homes being a Coleman kerosene lamp isn't apparently a sign of poverty.   ::)


I would suspect that it would depend on individual community standards of habitation. Some communities have stricter standards than others.

 :) Certainly, you are not forced to read the 19 page report! It is an option which I presented because you asked about the sourcing of the article. Open minds make for better discussions, however. And I have found that people who are looking for something with which they can disagree with, usually find it. Census statistics are always open to manipulation and interpretation, I know that from running political campaigns.

One time both myself and a lefty Democrat woman with whom I shared campaigns took the same TX state issued report from CPS and made two entirely different presentations based upon our individual interpretations of the data. We laughed about that, and we later got the contract to represent the client.  :laugh: I know I can parse just about any leftist report out of one of the left think tanks, and parse them to death as well. So, what would I accomplish by doing that? Nothing, but if I look for ideas that may be useful, then I gain a new perspective. If your goal is just to make debating points, enjoy, its painless.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #119 on: May 03, 2008, 10:19:53 pm »
When the War on Poverty was introduced in 1964, the U.S. poverty rate was 19 percent. Over the following decade, it dropped to 11 percent, and currently hovers around 12 percent."

1964 LBJ War on Poverty starts and poverty rate is 19%. Curently it hovers around 12%  lets see ( 19 minus 12 = 7 ) sure looks like it came down a full 7% points from the 1964 numbers, and for the trillion dollar tax investment, that is sorry!

It's $5 trillion, but who's counting?!  :laugh:

Anyway, my point was that in the decade after the WoP was instituted, the poverty rate fell by 8 percent. That, from any perspective, is progress. The poverty rate came fairly close to being cut in half.

So after that, it stabilized -- but at 7 to 8 percent lower than where it had been before. If a program helps a situation and then stabilizes it, but doesn't fix the situation entirely, it's still better than having no program at all. Without the WoP, presumably, we'd still be at 19 percent or higher.

If you're sick, and you take some medicine that makes you only half as sick but doesn't cure you, do you stop taking the medicine altogether? You might, if you've got some other medicine that would completely cure you, but you can't take them both at once, and you know the other one will work better. Do you have such a medicine, broketrash?

Anyway, none of this is taking place in a vaccuum -- any number of other factors could effect the situation, in either direction. Maybe the poverty rate would have plummeted between 1964 and 1974 anyway, even without the WoP programs. Or maybe other factors jumped into play after 1974 (stagflation maybe, or that horrible destructive Carter adminstration  ;D) that kept it from realizing its full measure of success.

In any case, since the WoP has improved the situation but hasn't cured it, by all means let's keep looking for ways to fine-tune it or try new things.

Quote
private sector company with that kind of track record would have gone out of business a long time ago.

Why do conservatives always insist on making this comparison? OK, sure. A private-sector company that spends a bunch of money on a charitable program and doesn't at least break even goes out of business. But government in fact ISN't a private-sector business -- the public and private sectors have different purposes. A private-sector business that spent a bunch of money on roads and bridges without any immediate payback would go out of business, too. A private-sector business that funded schools and libraries and parks and police and fire and gave tax breaks to other businesses and supported farmers and paid social security benefits and mortgage deductions and shipped food to starving people overseas and funded a war in the Middle East so on would go out of business, too. That's why we HAVE a public sector, and don't just rely on the private sector to take care of all our needs.

However, if there ARE any private-sector businesses that want to step forward and solve poverty, have at it! Who's stopping you? Know what? I'd even buy some stock and not complain too much if the stock price didn't soar up from one year to the next.

Quote
the only thing which will permanently lower the poverty rate and keep it lowered is economic opportunity for the underclass, and that will never happen as long as the gov poverty pimps have the poor by the throat.

Um, and tell me again why the two are mutually exclusive? Is it because businesses, despite all the tax breaks they do get, are nevertheless so burdened by taxes that they aren't able to offer all the economic opportunities they are just itching to provide for the poor? Or is it because businesses try and try to offer jobs to poor people, but those lazy poor people are so used to living on the dole they won't take the plentiful economic opportunities that are handed to them?