Why are the poor, poor?

[Front-Ranger]

My idea is basically to educate women. By educating women, you are educating their children (and thus future generations) as well. And not just what you can learn in the public education system but practical living tools and survival techniques as well. Currently many poor women either willingly or unwillingly serve as free entertainment for idle men. With education and self-esteem, they can learn to say no, why to say no, alternatives to pursue, and how to deliver a swift kick to the groin. They need to know the birth control options, and there is absolutely no rhyme or reason why forced abortions, sterilization, or chastity belts or whatever else you have in mind should even be considered! Even tho birth control is the domain of the female, technology has managed to introduce new safe nonhumiliating reasonably priced methods. Yes, we have male birth control, they are called condoms and how well have they worked among poor men, among men in general? Piss-poor is how.

In societies where women are educated and have some measure of self-esteem, family size goes down, crime goes down, and quality of life rises. Women hold the key.

[Artiste]

Merci beaucoup Front-Ranger !!

May I say that I love your post, and that I agree with it !!

Au revoir,
hugs!

[Artiste]

It remains that some muslims in many arab areas, India with the cast system, etc., and other women remain captured by their  so-called religion making them a slave.

Even in our countries such as the USA, Canada, and elsewhere !!

It is very hard to find them, get them to be safe, educated, like you say, as education can help !!

[Artiste]

I like the idea of micro-loans, but if it does NOT feed the slave markets for the rich to get richer !! ??

[serious crayons]

oh, and the whole forced labor thing has been tried before...it is called SLAVERY.

Well, in defense of one of the few parts of broketrash's agenda that I agreed with, I must point out that slaves didn't get paid, weren't allowed to select different employment options, couldn't choose where they wanted to live, had little control over the fates of their children and family members, etc.

To me, as I mentioned in an earlier post, tying welfare benefits to public service reminds me more of Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corp, Depression-Era work-relief programs that were considered quite successful. Many public parks still feature beautiful structures built by the WPA.

For many poor people, a big hurdle to being self-supporting is that they've simply never held a job. They aren't used to the procedures and habits. Providing welfare recipients an opportunity to be productive and gain employment experience, while also letting them give back something in return for their benefits, has always seemed to me like a good thing, so I've never quite understood the objection to it. Maybe I'm missing something, though. 

Of course, it goes without saying that if people are expected to work, they must have access to affordable child care, transportation and so on.

Another thing, there should be a 'grace period' on the end of benefits. We lived in a government apartment complex, the rent was a set amount based on income. My mother worked hard and got promoted at work...the complex promptly raised the rent, taking all the raise. So she was working longer hours with more responsibility for nothing. Her circumstances remained the same. If there was a 'grace period' she could have saved enough to make a deposit on another form of housing and moved OUT of the government housing.

(also when you are on welfare you are not allowed to save money. Your bank statements are checked and any money in savings counts as income so they raise your rent or cut benefits, so most people I know on welfare dont even try to save....and certainly not in banks)

Yes, I agree, and as broketrash also said, the structure of the system contains disincentives to work harder, save, get married -- the very things that would help people become more self-sufficient. Doesn't mean the whole baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, but it does seem it could use some fixin.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I am not the least bit offended. You are attempting to enjoin me in a serious conversation about federalism, a continuation of a conversation which we have intermittently engaged in since I first started logging on to Bettermost some 11 months ago.

As far as the questions as to whether the states will assume the entire burden that the Federal gov assumes at this time. That will depend upon the state. After a vigorous debate within the state in question over the state's role in welfare, states will try many different solutions. How do you know that a reduced plan of spending on welfare needs is not the best solution? How do I know that an increased plan of spending on welfare needs is not the best solution? Neither of us know this.

What I do know, is that the best arena for this debate is at the state and local level. The programs which spend the taxes coming out of the state and the localities which fund those welfare programs need to be debated by the citizens, the local officials and the state officials. I am confident that if the people thru referenda, constitutional amendment, or just plain ordinary elections vote for those welfare plans or those who advocate an increase in spending, then those enhanced programs will become reality. The converse is also true. This is the essence of democracy, and this is what is lacking in the present welfare system, there is no accountability to the tax payer and the voter.

The magic of the federal system is that states are individual laboratories and given time and experimentation, we shall learn what works best for the tax payers money. But, we will never learn this until the Federal gov gets out of the way.

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).

[Marge_Innavera]

Slavery is coming back, unfortunately!!

Even China has slaves, children as such now sold to the rich on the auction block !

A number of posts here have mentioned forms of involuntary labor as de facto slavery, but you don't have to find parallels -- chattel slavery is alive and well.  Some of the worst examples are in Africa, with the worst and most brutal conditions being in Sudan and Mauritania. 

Interestingly, trafficking in human beings has replaced the drug traffic as the most widespread and lucrative illicit business on the planet.

[delalluvia]

Quote from: injest on Today at 08:32:31 AM

(and you have to consider the source...the Heritage Foundation is a front for the Moral Majority refugees. They consider REAGAN to be the Messiah "the greatest most successful President since Lincoln"  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes)

Quote from broketrash

That comment is sadly lacking in an understanding of the Heritage Foundation and indicative of the lack of serious scholarship on this issue under discussion. I won't further engage in a discussion that shows a lack of the basic knowledge of the problem in question, and relies on anecdotal commentary and emotional appeal. Why should I waste my time with that level of discussion of a very serious problem that will in fact be resolved in the political process one way of the other over the next decade?

http://www.heritage.org/

*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.

[serious crayons]

the difference I see between Roosevelts programs and the 'solution' offered here is the 'forced labor' part...the interring people into 'work farms' (they would not have a lot of options about their futures locked up in camps or being forcibly sterilized.)

Oh, oh, oh! Sorry, Jess, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about this part of broketrash's post ...

6) Those who receive welfare aid should also be required to offer community service such as cleaning up the parks. It is not acceptable to take the income from others without showing gratitude. We should make it very clear that welfare assistance is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT, and it is not a permanent condition.

... which is a llittle more scold-y than I would phrase it, especially the second sentence, but overall doesn't seem like an outrageous request, depending on the particulars.

But apparently you were referring to THIS part of broketrash's post...

2) The fathers need to be tracked down and forced to contribute to the family income. If they refuse, then we need to revive the prison farm system. The productive work of raising commodities for sale can be applied to individual families. Repeat male offenders should be forceably sterilized.

... 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.

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.

Now, much as I'd like to see deadbeat dads forced to take responsibility, that sounds like a bit much.

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

Yep, I also followed broketrash's link and the first thing I saw was a giant picture of Ronald Reagan at the top of the page. Now I didn't see where they called him "the Messiah" exactly, but if you do a search for Reagan on the website you'll find a lot of awfully worshipful-sounding articles.

And Moral Majority? Well, if you search for "moral" you'll find quite a few articles there, too.

So I'd agree that it's hardly fair to accuse someone of "lack of serious scholarship" who is more or less simply quoting the site.

[delalluvia]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/bg_2064.pdf

Earlier, I had posted only the executive summary. Here is the original article as a 19 page PDF file with dozens of charts and direct referential links to the reports in which you have an interest.. So, knock yourself out! 

this is article is by the same scholar whose study of the economic and social impact of illegal immigration stopped the rush to pass the Kennedy McCain amnesty bill in its tracks last year. this guy ain't no light weight crack pot. his work is taken very seriously in think tanks across the US.  .
 with dozens of charts and direct referential links to the reports in which you indicated  an interest. 

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.