Hamas endorses Obama

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[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.

[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.