Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
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.
Threaded Mode
