US poverty: chronic ill, little hope for cure

[Axl_owns_dexter]

We educate the kids that are already here as best we can.  Nobody disagrees with that.

However, we need long term planning to prevent poor people from having more kids then they can support.  Its not about hating anyone.  We need to prevent the problems we have now.  Welfare needs to be further reformed, legislation needs to be put in place to create incentives for people to get married and stay together.  In general, we need to strenghthen the American family.  I think if we did that, a lot of our social problems wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[pilferk]

We educate the kids that are already here as best we can.? Nobody disagrees with that.

However, we need long term planning to prevent poor people from having more kids then they can support.? Its not about hating anyone.? We need to prevent the problems we have now.? Welfare needs to be further reformed, legislation needs to be put in place to create incentives for people to get married and stay together.? In general, we need to strenghthen the American family.? I think if we did that, a lot of our social problems wouldn't be nearly as bad.

In one breath I hear "Marriage is a sacred institution that shouldn't be modified". (IE: No gay marriage)

In the next "Legislations should change marriage to encourage more people to stay together". (IE: Harder divorce, etc)

I don't disagree that we need to strengthen the American Family.  But I DO disagree that the government should have a legislative hand in it.  That's both too drastic and too costly....not to mention scary as fuck.  Our government tends to have a hard time with the concept of restraint, historically.  And there are too many "extenuating circumstances" that can precipitate family break ups (abusive spouse, infidelity, addiction, etc). 

A "strong family" does not, by necessity, have to include 2 parents.  It certainly helps to have a strong male and female role model, to be sure.  But the operative word there is "strong" not male or female.  A "weak" or "negative" role model is, I think, actully WORSE than having no role model of that gender.

[pilferk]

George W. Bush is the worst thing to have happened to America.

this is not even a bush thing at all, this is a coutry wide time wide problem..... cant jsut throw this one on bush, granted hes not doing alot to fix it.... but hes not the reason its @ 12.7% was there for years

This is true. Yet the outsourcing is a new thing. As that article states, many unskilled people had job that did pay well enough to put them in the middle class. Those jobs are hard, long and often times dangerous. IMO those people willing to put in 13 hour days doing that kind of work deserve the pay. With those jobs being shipped overseas these people have nothing to turn to except working two minumum wage jobs to support their family.

I remember coming home late from work one night. I stopped to get gas and started talking to the clerk at the 7-11. The guy lost his good job (which was outsourced, some type of factory work I can't remember) and now worked the 7-11 eight hours, would go home and sleep 3-4 hours then get up and do construction during the day.....That is no way to live.

On the outsourcing issue...well, you can thank Clinton for the beginings of that, actually.  NAFTA, and some other trade treatise during his administration, really opened the door on that.  Bush sure has opened it wider, but....

[pilferk]

You know what I notice in my neck of the woods.? How come sometimes when I go to the supermarket there is someone in front of me who is on food stamps and she weighs 250 lbs and her kids look like they haven't eaten in weeks?? Then she proceeds to swear at her starving kids, buy cigarettes and beer with cash and then buy potato chips and cookies with food stamps.? This is not a sterotype.? This is what I actually often see when I go to the grocery store.? I'm sure most Americans see this from time to time.? I'm not sure how you can be poor and 250 pounds.? Those things always seemed to be in conflict with one another.

Also, about some that fall into the "poor" category.? I don't want a dime of my tax money going to support a women who has a kid that she can't afford to have in the first place.? If you are poor and can't afford a child, then don't have them.? It's pretty easy to not get pregnant and cost me money.? This is one of my biggest pet-peeves.? I don't think we should financially support people who could avoid this in the first place.? I know liberals will disagree , but giving my money to someone like this is absurd.

slc, someone finally gave you some 'facts' that so often ask for and you didn't like it.? Your rant was the funniest thing I've seen in a while.? Fox News isn't good enough for you but the NY Times is.? LOL? ??

I'll ignore the fact it IS a stereotype, whether you see it or not, and just answer the underlying question:

Why are more poor people obese?

Have you actually looked at WHAT constitutes the "least expensive" food in a grocery store?  Have you looked at the contents?

Cheap food, by and large, is not very healthy food.  It's filled with fat and carbs and, traditionally, is very high calorie. Vegetables, fruit,  "good" meat (fish, lean beef, chicken), and other more healthy foods are much more expensive. In other words, eating cheap is not going to keep you thin because, quite frankly, eating cheap means eating junk.  When you're stretching your food stamps/state assistance and cash to the max.....

In addition, I daresay a gym membership might be out of the range of their monthly budget range. Nor is a treadmill.  And taking a nightly stroll, when you live in the inner city, might not ACTUALLY be very good for your health, all things considered.

Does that answer the question?

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Pil, the US government sure opened the doors to this mess we have now in regards to the family with all the welfare state legislation.  I am only for getting rid of the mess that government created in the first place.

[pilferk]

That is all I ever hear from the right is how we (which is false) give more help than any other country in the world.

Who gives more aid to the poor in this world than the US?? I'd like to see the numbers.? You may be right, but I'd still like to see the numbers.? And don't show me some percentages of population numbers or contribution by GNP....the bottom line number that matters is totally contributed by a country.? Who gives more than the US??


Seems to me that the liberals want to spend my money to help the often times stupid and lazy.?

Proof, please? ?That the poor are "often times stupid and lazy"?

And a banana or an apple is cheap? ?You really have no clue, huh?

Here, I'll help:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib747/aib74707.pdf

[pilferk]

Pil, the US government sure opened the doors to this mess we have now in regards to the family with all the welfare state legislation.? I am only for getting rid of the mess that government created in the first place.

I don't disagree, it's just how we go about it that concerns me.? I only want the government's nose in "my business" as far as it needs to be.? And determining the hows and why's of my marriage and whether it's sustainalbe is a bit too close for comfort, for me.

I do agree that the current system needs work.? It's not efficient and far too easy to "cheat".? The problem lies in coming up with a better system that doesn't exclude those that need help, but "encourages" those that don't need help (According to the 1994 Green Book from Ways and Means, only about 5% of those on welfare are "cheaters) that it would be more lucrative to actually be productive.? The higher minimum wage might help, though there are always those that would prefer something for nothing over the alternative, and the higher minimum wage carries it's own inherent problems (further increases the incentive for outsourcing).

[pilferk]

Of course there are always going to be welfare abusers, as Charity Case described. ?But, you can't just assume that someone is poor because they are stupid or lazy.

And no one said they assumed all poor people were stupid or lazy.? Read the post.? I said that I was for helping poor prople on a temporary basis to get out of the hole.? If they don't dig themselves out or have kids when they can't afford it or don't even try to find a job then they are either stupid or lazy and should not be support.?

Does the aid you liberals want to give out every end?? Is there ever a point where you say someone is a lost cause?? Do you have a line, either economically or socially, they you won't cross to give aid?? Helping others is great and it is a fundamental part of the US, but there needs to be limits.? I draw the line with the stupid and lazy personally.

You did so say they were stupid and lazy:

Seems to me that the liberals want to spend my money to help the often times stupid and lazy.

Black and white, clear as day.

[gilld1]

So Walk, do you own a car? ?You obviously have a computer, according to Bolivian standards you must be a very wealthy man. ?Millionaire? ?Multi-millionaire? ?

I am kind of middle of the road on this. ?Do I like seeing my 8 or 9 year old students being dirt poor but yet having a PS2? ?No, I do not condone this type of spending but you can't punish children for what their parents do. ?With out some aid and programs like WIC some of these kids would never make it to school. ?

SLC, I was pointing out some misleading stereotypes about poverty and Welfare. ?I got the sense from severalposts that the pervading image of the poor is an inner-city black woman with 4-5 kids. ?This would lead a racist to say cut off all the funds for these poor blacks. ?When in actuality, most of the poor are rural whites in trailor parks. ?Would the racist cut off his white brithers? ?Devil's advocate? Yes. ?Doublespeak? No.

[pilferk]

Oh so you showed a list of countries' contributions based on GNP.? I asked you for a true list, not a list skewed to show how bad the US.? Funny how there are two options here.? One options shows that the US contributes more dollars than any other country in the world (probably by a ton).? The second option is to show a list of contributions by GNP which, according to you, shows us at #22.? And which option does slc choose to show?? Of course he chooses the option that shows the US in the poorest light possible.? You are about as anti-American as possible man.? I said it before, grow a pair go live overseas if the US sucks so bad.? I've yet to see you say one positive thing about the US on this board.? I could understand if you were talking about someplace else, but the US is by far the greatest place on this planet tolive.? Yesterday, now and tomorrow.? You wouldn't know it to listen to you though.

The fact is that we contribute more dollars to human suffering causing than any other country in the world.? Fact is we contribute more than dollars.? We captured Milosevic and ended genocide single handedly (basically) without lose of American lives.? We stopped Hussein from taking Kuwait.? These are contributions to the poorer countries that you don't find in lists by GNP.? All other things aside, we contribute the most per country.

Answer (though a bit dated):

How much aid does the United States give?
Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush?s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world?s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world?s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001?almost a third of what America contributed.

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/policy/foreignaid_print.html

[pilferk]

So Walk, do you own a car? ?You obviously have a computer, according to Bolivian standards you must be a very wealthy man. ?Millionaire? ?Multi-millionaire? ?

I am kind of middle of the road on this. ?Do I like seeing my 8 or 9 year old students being dirt poor but yet having a PS2? ?No, I do not condone this type of spending but you can't punish children for what their parents do. ?With out some aid and programs like WIC some of these kids would never make it to school. ?

SLC, I was pointing out some misleading stereotypes about poverty and Welfare. ?I got the sense from severalposts that the pervading image of the poor is an inner-city black woman with 4-5 kids. ?This would lead a racist to say cut off all the funds for these poor blacks. ?When in actuality, most of the poor are rural whites in trailor parks. ?Would the racist cut off his white brithers? ?Devil's advocate? Yes. ?Doublespeak? No.

And who's to say WHERE that PS2 came from.  That's why anecdotal info is so much crap.

You'd all be shocked...on the floor, flat out shocked...at what we see, every year, come through our Toys for Tots drive.  Last year, alone, we had about 25 to 30 PS2's contributed between the Women's auxillary's contribution and another local group's contribution.  I know the Women's auxillary dealth with Sony directly and got them below retail.

Again, I'm not saying that's the situation in each case.  But....again, anecdotal information isn't really very compelling.

[gilld1]

Pilferk, you rant on anecdotal evidence but then you provide some as well.  How is the situation I presented any more or less anecdotal than yours?

[pilferk]

Pilferk, you rant on anecdotal evidence but then you provide some as well.? How is the situation I presented any more or less anecdotal than yours?

It's not.? That's the point.?

Both are anecdotal.

They both HAPPENED.

But yet, depending on which "verision" is presented, you get a vastly different picture painted for you.

Which bolsters the point that anecdotal info is pretty worthless.

So, snapping to judgement based on it (and I know you weren't the original poster who brought up the PS2 thing....you're just continuing the example), and what you percieve based on it, without further information, might not be the best thing to do.

[SLCPUNK]

SLC, I was pointing out some misleading stereotypes about poverty and Welfare.  I got the sense from severalposts that the pervading image of the poor is an inner-city black woman with 4-5 kids.  This would lead a racist to say cut off all the funds for these poor blacks.  When in actuality, most of the poor are rural whites in trailor parks.  Would the racist cut off his white brithers?  Devil's advocate? Yes.  Doublespeak? No.

I understand and agree with the misleading stereotypes about poverty. Many are presented here by the posters (half prejudice anyway) on the board.

I don't recall claiming anything you said was doublespeak, and if I did, it probably was not intended towards you (late night sleepy post, mistake, whatever.)

[Charity Case]

Ok, I understand being angry at people who pump out kids they can't afford.? I get it, really I do.? But what do you propose we do about it?? The kids are already here, its not their fault.? They need an education and food and shelter.? Someone has to pay for it.

As for the poor people who haven't had kids yet, what about them?? Forced sterlization or abortion?? In America?

It's a dilemma for sure.  And that is why we have welfare I guess.  But if it were up to me I would make it not attractive at all to have kids if you can't afforf them.  That means NO support based on the number of children you have.

And can you imagine the improvements that we would see if we forced sterilization of certain groups?  If we sterilized drug addicts, the hopelessly impoverished and all liberals...wouldn't this country improve almost over night?   

[gilld1]

"Special Showers" for those who voted for Bush would be a quicker way to raise the intelligence level of this country.

Wow, echoes of Hitler here on the board. 

[SLCPUNK]

Ok, I understand being angry at people who pump out kids they can't afford.  I get it, really I do.  But what do you propose we do about it?  The kids are already here, its not their fault.  They need an education and food and shelter.  Someone has to pay for it.

As for the poor people who haven't had kids yet, what about them?  Forced sterlization or abortion?  In America?

And can you imagine the improvements that we would see if we forced sterilization of certain groups?  If we sterilized drug addicts, the hopelessly impoverished and all liberals...wouldn't this country improve almost over night?

Whoa there....What kind of country do you want to live in?

If somebody disagrees with you then they should live in another country?

If somebody is poor or has a different opinion then you, then make sure they can't reproduce?

If somebody has a drug problem, make sure they can't reproduce either?

Wow! 

You sure have a fucked up vision of what America should be.

Why not include blacks and gays too? You're almost there.....

 

"Special Showers" for those who voted for Bush would be a quicker way to raise the intelligence level of this country.

Wow, echoes of Hitler here on the board.

Yea...this is amazing to read isn't it?

[jarmo]

You don't seem interested in discussing this anymore so I'll lock it.




/jarmo