Hamas endorses Obama

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Precisely.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by skylark

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?

How about we stop creating these distinctions for social issues that are so intertwined. We don't have to pick and choose. A mixture of addressing poverty and inequality in education along with holding people accountable for their actions will suffice. But people are so bent on these bullcrap liberal (address the root causes and potentially raise taxes) vs. conservative (blame people so we don't have to raise taxes for what's a personal problem) loyalties that they won't push to integrate these approaches. That's too much like right.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

How about we stop creating these distinctions for social issues that are so intertwined. We don't have to pick and choose. A mixture of addressing poverty and inequality in education along with holding people accountable for their actions will suffice. But people are so bent on these bullcrap liberal (address the root causes and potentially raise taxes) vs. conservative (blame people so we don't have to raise taxes for what's a personal problem) loyalties that they won't push to integrate these approaches. That's too much like right.

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

I'd take low crime because of low poverty, but it wouldn't mean I'd let the few criminals we did have off the hook.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

Huh?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

In an ideal world, you're right.

However, explaining something, particularly from a sociological/psychological perspective isn't the same as excusing it and I think that's a difficulty that people really have in these discussions. Explaining why a man murders his wife and children by looking at his past, his environment, his own psychological status doesn't make it okay. In the end he still chose to act.

Personal responsibility is a problem. However you get a kid who started hanging out with the guys on the corner back when he was 12. He's 17 or 18 and he gets arrested, what do we do with him? If we lock all of those kids up, they're MORE dependent on the state. However we also can't let criminals run free.

That's why I'm suggesting we address the systems in place when that kid was 11. It's the only way out of a no-win situation.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not overly fond of the argument that poverty is a valid excuse for crime....

No one said that in this thread and people who say that in real life are confusing the issue.

Poverty is a correlate of crime. It doesn't cause it and therefore doesn't "explain" it.