See, you're pulling me in, but I'm resisting... I will say, though, that I happen to be a person that believes that protecting free enterprise and protecting the poorest of the poor don't have to be mutually exclusive. I happen to be a fan of capitalism for many reasons, I also believe in social responsibility. At the personal AND governmental levels. And I don't work at an institution of higher education.

It wasn't my intent to assert that all of that applied to you. I was merely trying to say that there is a fundamental disagreement on this issue that doesn't get talked about a lot. I think that is mostly because people who harbor anti-capitalist views keep it hidden (and I think this number is actually pretty large).

I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive either, until you start bringing in government action. At that point in my mind, the only question is how significant the infringement will be, but the breach is there, nonetheless.

When Republicans run the country, the poor don't get fed. When Democrats run the country, the poor don't get fed. It's not a left versus right thing. If the GOP had a marvelous *something* that made sure the poor of the cities and of Appalachia alike had food to eat I would sign on in an instant. At the very least, the Democrats pay lip service to it. It doesn't even seem to be on the Republican's radar.

And that's not even getting into the fact that it takes two incomes to make ends meet these days. It used to be that minimum wage was what it took to feed the man, his wife, and his family. If that had remained the standard, I'd be on your side of the fence, where the unemployed (temporarily) and the unemployable (permanent) are the only ones who really need help.

Instead a household needs 2-3 incomes just to support themselves, and God forbid they get sick or hurt - minimum wage jobs don't provide insurance - because then they're "freeloading" off our healthcare system (aka going into massive debt). THAT is the state of the country today and THAT is disgusting in a country as rich as we are. And the reason why people turn to the government is because the problem is SO huge and the resources of charities are SO small that it is overwhelming.

It is arguably in the best interest of the country for individuals to grow up with good nutrition (WIC, food stamps), education (public schools), and a roof over their heads (subsidized housing). These things are needed for healthy, working citizens.

I'm not necessarily speaking of it being a partisan issue. It can break down that way too, but when I say left, I mean the red-on-the-inside true left. The problem is that many people who feel passionately about poverty (or global warming, or whatever) tie themselves into these partisan causes. The Democrats do give lip service to poverty, and they also connect it to socialistic economic policies which guarantees that half the country will automatically be opposed to it.

I think your "state of the country" comments are relatively sensationalized, but nonetheless I think you're right that we should be doing more to help the less fortunate. But I don't see any solutions. The government has been in the social engineering business for decades now, with nothing but utter failure to show for it.

We need someone to restore the sense of pride people take in this country, and that is needed to accomplish two purposes:

A) Citizens need to recognize that it is their responsibility to help other Americans, not the government's. Clearly the government is completely ineffective when it comes to screening, and many people simply won't seek out help, and other citizens will need to bring it to them.

B) Second, we need a culture where it is simply unacceptable not to be able to provide for one's family. I know there are millions of poor people out there who feel just like this, and I think they're the ones who will manage to escape the grasps of poverty and public assistance. Your parents probably saw a culture like this, I know mine did. I'm not saying we should all chastise people of moderate means, but we must restore some sense of responsibility into American culture.

Of course, my vision for this depends on a host of factors. Fathers have to start taking responsibility for their families. People must make better reproductive decisions. We must have better race relations in this country, meaning an open dialogue without fear of stigma. We have to change how people look at labor.

And no, I'm not willing to cut off children to force their parents to be responsible (because I'm not sure they'll react). But I also won't support any new effort to end poverty that centers on the helplessness of people in poverty. I don't think the solution to decades of failed policies is simply to double the same efforts.

This caught my eye. There seems to be a floating definition of poverty.

Is someone going to be able to support the lifestyle they want off of minimum wage? Hardly.

Is someone going to be able to provide the five basics for human survival? Most definitely.

The sense of entitlement is astounding. The right to health care. The right to own a car. The right to have a TV.

Point out where this is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

At current Federal levels ($5.85 an hour), the worker working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks will result in $12,168 per year. If you assume that housing costs should not exceed 28% of the yearly gross income (standard for assuming mortgage loans), then this person will need to find a house or apartment with mortgage or rent of $282.93 per month. After that expenditure, the person will be left with $653.07 for the month. Average utilities cost (basic heat, electric, water, trash) will run about another $200 per month, depending on what month it is). So then you're left with $453.07. Groceries for the month will easily run $50 per week for a single, a lot more if you have a family. My fam of 4 spends on average $150 per week (and that's making use of sales and coupons). So that would be another $200, leaving $250.

Now, come the decisions... do you live in an area that you can make use of transportation to get to work? If not, you'll need a car. But on that $250, you probably can't afford the insurance and gas (assuming you have a clunker, because then you'd also have a payment). You may have a good friend who could take you to work, but you'd still have to contribute to the gas money.

Or do you pay for health care? A basic, no frills, high deductible/co-pay plan will run about $50 bucks a month for a young, healthy person. But for a family, again, that will be more. Having basic care is not a "frill"... it will help prevent possible bankruptcy in the event of a major medical catastrophe.

I don't know about you, but this scenario is very troubling in a country that is so prosperous. ESPECIALLY if this scenario is happening to a family. It is QUITE obvious that Drolefille's assessment is correct, that families will most definitely be dependent on 2-3 jobs. Even in rural areas, I think rent will cost more than $280 per month. I used to live in a small town and even there, my rent for a meager 2 bedroom apartment was $325.

I suggest, just for fun, that you go to hulu.com (a tv site) and watch the minimum wage episode of 30 days.

And I'm sorry lumping a TV and a car in with health care? What do you want to happen if someone who is uninsured breaks his or her leg? Let them have a broken leg, not work, and slowly starve to death? Yeah, you're right. Health care is a luxury.

My comments are "sensational" because they are one extreme. I fully acknowledge that they're a one-sided perspective, but I think they are one that cannot be ignored. I think there's a big gap between considering people to be helpless and acknowledging that they're looking at a mathematically impossible situation. We're talking here about people who ARE "helping" and working and still spinning their wheels because there's no upward movement in our society any more.

I don't 100% agree with your ideal plan up there, but I'd be on board if I thought it would actually occur.

Sure, and I know that it IS the state of America for some. But when I hear a poverty advocate make overbroad statements, it repels me. I think a lot of people would say the same. I know it is a passionate issue for many, but often that passion can lead to assertions which harm the speaker's credibility.

I don't know how realistic my idealized scenario is, but I firmly believe it is the only way to truly mitigate the problem of poverty in America. What is the standard we're satisfied with? Does everyone have to be middle class? Or does everyone just have to have life's essentials? While I do hope more people are able to achieve the American dream, I'm not really interested in engineering that.

Fair enough, I go there because so many people brush poverty up as urban "welfare moms" who are "lazy" etc. There's a portion of the population that abuses the system, there are many more who need a system, or something.

If we could make sure people got fed, clean water, safe shelter, and medical treatment I would consider that the basic needs. In return I'd want people who are capable of working to work, and people who are not capable receiving rehabilitation (therapy, medication, education, whatever they're lacking). There will always be some portion of the population incapable of working.

The problem is that this is a system, and to address crime you need to address poverty, to address poverty you need to address crime, etc.

THIS.

So, so, so well-said, Drolefille.

Precisely.

You're right, and to address both you have address parenting and substance abuse and so on. I'm not overly fond of the argument that poverty is a valid excuse for crime, but I realize that they're often relatively inseparable.

I have yet to hear anyone who truly thinks that poverty is an excuse for crime. I think that is a mischaracterization often given to "liberal" arguments so that no one will listen to them. It is more like poverty is part of an explanation (and we have to understand the complicated multiple factors of why someone might decide to resort to crime in order to correct the problem). I think that is often a misperception of some.

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone overtly say that crime is excusable because of poverty, but I've heard people come close. When you say that reducing poverty is necessary to reduce crime, it removes responsibility from those who've chosen to break the law, and I simply won't support that. How about we try and reduce poverty by helping people, and crime by punishing people?

Are poverty and crime correlated? Sure. Do they have to be? No.