U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 11:08 AM
 
689 posts, read 481,155 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I watched the 60 minutes special on Sunday on poverty and for anyone who has something resembling a heart and is not brain-dead its very disturbing. Here are a few facts for those who care:

1. Virtually every child featured on the special lived with two parents;
2. Virtually every child featured was articulate and obviously came from a home where education was valued;
3. It involved children of every race;
4. Many of the children had lived in very middle class homes until a misfortune hit their family. The primary misfortune was job loss in a bad economy;
5. Many of the parents hunted literally day and night for a job to replace the one they had lost;
6. These people were not "lay-abouts", drug addicts, or ne'er-do-wells. They were people suffering because of a severe recession.
7. We aren't talking about "doing without an IPOD", over half the children said they had gone to bed hungry on more than one occasion. Its a real eye-opener to hear a 12 year old child in America describe being so hungry they can't sleep at night.

I am generally proud to be an American. I think our country has done some great things. This country has been good to me. Having said that, to hear that story on Sixty Minutes just made me sick to my stomach.

I don't doubt that there are thousands of heart-breaking stories out there of misfortune that has fallen on heretofore productive, self sufficient families. That said, the shock headline of "25% of kids living in poverty" paints a picture of mass deprivation in this country that I don't believe is true. They trot out some very sad, anecedotal examples but don't really make that case that 1 out of 4 kids in this country live in a household that lacks the resources, between earnings and assistance, to feed and house them.

I feel empathy for the people who's stories were highlighted. That doesn't mean I have to buy the line that a quarter of American children are living in similar circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 03-08-2011, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
9,146 posts, read 5,853,742 times
Reputation: 7280
[quote=Mircea;18181968,

I'm of the opinion that learning is exponentially related to the intensity of suffering. The more someone suffers, the more they learn.

You have two entire generations, actually three, that have never known deprivation. They need to experience it in order to move on.

Living in motels? See how stupid they are? Maybe they're experiencing cable/satellite withdrawal symptoms.

They could rent a 3 bedroom apartment with another family. The adult couples get the two bedrooms and the kids get bunked in the 3rd.

Immigrants do that. A 3 bedroom apartment? Hell, there'd be three (or more) immigrant families in their not 2. [/quote]

I can agree that learning that less is more is good. That being able to assign a genuine value to things are good. But for especially little kids who do not know where they'll be sleeping that night and who are not being allowed a childhood its not so good. I met these kids. Some of them spent the whole day wandering around with their parents carrying suitcases. This will do no, none, *zero* good for a little kid. What it teaches them is to use. It was remarkable how when they did have time to play they could revert, but the shelter had rules that people including kids were not wander around, basically stay on your matt until bedtime, and they could play there with their toys. Those kids would show a mark forever of the experience.

And knowing that tomorrow it can all be stripped away can give you a great appreciation of today, but it also leaves you with a feeling that everything is just really *temperary* and its hard to take a goal and believe in it. There is always a downside.

As far as motels. Motels are where you go when you can't rent a house. Families rent for the week at Motel 6. Next week they might or might not have the money but they do now. No privacy and lots of lowlife around too. Police calls for drugs were common. I don't know how these immigrnats rent a house for two/three families but I suspect its because they are connected in a network of other immigrnats And I'll bet that only three or four of them are officially living in the house, the rest added after the fact.

Someone who is homeless with a family, who *can't* afford the security deposit or maybe pay for a whole month cannot rent a house. Credit by then is ruined, and credit check are made at your expense. A large chunk of cash has to start out that rental. And landlords generally do not want three families crowded into a house and will evict if they find out. Not to mention that many cities have maximum occupancy laws.

Add to this that most people in this catagory of homeless have not been out there long, are confused and scared and don't know how to take advantage of what is available, and it makes it worse. The long term homeless are different, they *choose* to live the lifestyle. People just dumped on the street do not and don't know where to turn so they look towards motels when they can and shelters when they can't.

Do I want you to care about these children? Yes. Because they of NO fault of their own are trapped in this and if we as a society don't care about them then we are no better than these societies where the poverty is so common and so ignored it will never go away.

I wonder how many of those families used to look at the homeless and looked away since it could never be them. You never know. And it can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
9,146 posts, read 5,853,742 times
Reputation: 7280
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Between breakfast/lunch/snack at school and food stamps and food pantries I honestly don't know how any parent lets their kids go to bed hungry at night.

Is it pride that are keeping them from filling out that free breakfast/lunch form for school or applying for food stamps or visiting a food pantry ?
The kids at the shelter would get a lunch for school. Outside they'd open it up to check. Half the time there was mold on the bread or the meat looked grey and it was given to the homeless cats who lived outside the shelter since parents didn't want their kids being sick. The programs where kids get free lunches require things like paperwork and forms and these kids parents didn't have an address to establish residency. Thus the city paid the shelter to provide lunch and they got spoiled food.

It's not as simple as that. Food stamps can't be used to buy prepared food. If you have no place to live, how do you cook it? The cariity's gave out food, but lots of time it was frozen. What was I supposed to do with frozen food? I didn't qualify for food stamps, but lived on a dollar breakfast as the close by fast food place, bread and peanut butter sanwitches for lunch and Wendy's chili and baked potatoes for dinner. Sometimes I couldn't afford breakfast or lunch. Food pantries generally are aimed at those who have kitchens. No kitchen and much of it is useless.

Shelters sometimes have a free dinner. Mine did, but the food was donated and put in the frig. Nothing ever was tossed for being too old and regularly someothing would turn out to be bad. I would end up in the hospital over that I wouldn't take the chance. Free food should not be bad, spoiled food.

Charities/churches giving out cooked food? There was a park where a couple of church groups had been doing it. The city told them they weren't allowed to, so they'd watch and drop off dinners and leave. They couldn't dispense from the church premisis since they were not a restraunt and did not have a food lisence. Like I said its very different out in the real world.

And people did not leave the food they had alone. It went in the backpack. The backpack went with you. People would steal it. The worse part of being homeless, though, is being looked at like you are invisible and worth nothing and they don't want you around. Thing is, since every one of the people in the shelter I was in HAD had a home, HAD had income, HAD had a life before something happened to it and NONE of them were druggees or drunks, the real reason they didn't want to see was somewhere inside they knew tomorror it could be them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Murfreesboro (nearer Smyrna), TN
691 posts, read 286,079 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Plain and simple.
I would much, much rather have my taxes going to help out those who are legitimately in need than having my taxes go to subsidize the tax-evading, government-subsidized corporations of this country (you have heard the term "corporate welfare"?).

Also realize the social cost of thousands of homeless people on the streets. This scenario will unsettle the status quo pretty fast. Tax payers will pay one way or another to aid the bottom tiers, always have, always will. It's what keeps the ball rolling, and the rich rich. The rich need a middle class (which in turn needs a lower class) in order to survive, whether they realize it or not (and of course, they don't).
I would feel better, since we have to pay taxes, if the money was better spent on helping people who need. Some of these people "need" help for generation after generation. This should be addresses so people don't stay there. People should get help when they need it but not year after year after year...

I don't like corporate welfare. I assume the gov't does this so the gov't can get into the company's business. About the upper class needing the middle and so on, I would say so somewhat but there are some countries, primarily in SE Asia where there where you either have everything or nothing.

I am all for helping people, but not having them ride your coattails forever, all the while dispising the rich. I am not saying this is you.

Charles Sands
Smyrna, TN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,128 posts, read 1,944,655 times
Reputation: 2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
I can agree that learning that less is more is good. That being able to assign a genuine value to things are good. But for especially little kids who do not know where they'll be sleeping that night and who are not being allowed a childhood its not so good. I met these kids. Some of them spent the whole day wandering around with their parents carrying suitcases. This will do no, none, *zero* good for a little kid. What it teaches them is to use. It was remarkable how when they did have time to play they could revert, but the shelter had rules that people including kids were not wander around, basically stay on your matt until bedtime, and they could play there with their toys. Those kids would show a mark forever of the experience.

And knowing that tomorrow it can all be stripped away can give you a great appreciation of today, but it also leaves you with a feeling that everything is just really *temperary* and its hard to take a goal and believe in it. There is always a downside.

As far as motels. Motels are where you go when you can't rent a house. Families rent for the week at Motel 6. Next week they might or might not have the money but they do now. No privacy and lots of lowlife around too. Police calls for drugs were common. I don't know how these immigrnats rent a house for two/three families but I suspect its because they are connected in a network of other immigrnats And I'll bet that only three or four of them are officially living in the house, the rest added after the fact.

Someone who is homeless with a family, who *can't* afford the security deposit or maybe pay for a whole month cannot rent a house. Credit by then is ruined, and credit check are made at your expense. A large chunk of cash has to start out that rental. And landlords generally do not want three families crowded into a house and will evict if they find out. Not to mention that many cities have maximum occupancy laws.

Add to this that most people in this catagory of homeless have not been out there long, are confused and scared and don't know how to take advantage of what is available, and it makes it worse. The long term homeless are different, they *choose* to live the lifestyle. People just dumped on the street do not and don't know where to turn so they look towards motels when they can and shelters when they can't.

Do I want you to care about these children? Yes. Because they of NO fault of their own are trapped in this and if we as a society don't care about them then we are no better than these societies where the poverty is so common and so ignored it will never go away.

I wonder how many of those families used to look at the homeless and looked away since it could never be them. You never know. And it can.
I have a question for everybody. I tried to give a positive reputation to the message above and I got a message that I had to distribute that around before giving him that. Is this forum become socialist also? I now have to make everybody feel good before I give what I believe is a deserving reputation? Anyone know? Please I ask someone explain this to me, take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Somewhere on Earth
1,052 posts, read 837,402 times
Reputation: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
Is this forum become socialist also?
I'm not sure what you are asking for, but this forum is not becoming socialist. It is probably to prevent people from spamming the like button too much. Kinda like the "Wait 10 second before posting". I think you gave this person props already, so it's a preventative measure to make sure you are not spamming it just because.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 01:49 PM
 
Location: New England
10,694 posts, read 6,453,993 times
Reputation: 7089
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpsTN View Post
I would feel better, since we have to pay taxes, if the money was better spent on helping people who need. Some of these people "need" help for generation after generation. This should be addresses so people don't stay there. People should get help when they need it but not year after year after year...

I don't like corporate welfare. I assume the gov't does this so the gov't can get into the company's business. About the upper class needing the middle and so on, I would say so somewhat but there are some countries, primarily in SE Asia where there where you either have everything or nothing.

I am all for helping people, but not having them ride your coattails forever, all the while dispising the rich. I am not saying this is you.

Charles Sands
Smyrna, TN
No one is saying they despise the rich. Who has time to do that. Serves no purpose.

The lobbyists make sure their interests get off the hook regarding taxes. who lobbies for the poor?

Also no one is saying they want to help people year after year. There is that profile of people, but what we are talking about with the new wave of middle class sunk to homelessness is not the same thing. How to get that across so it sticks?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 04:09 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,128 posts, read 1,944,655 times
Reputation: 2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Lune View Post
I'm not sure what you are asking for, but this forum is not becoming socialist. It is probably to prevent people from spamming the like button too much. Kinda like the "Wait 10 second before posting". I think you gave this person props already, so it's a preventative measure to make sure you are not spamming it just because.
Thanks for the reply. The socialist comment was because the note said I needed to spread positive comments on others before I can do that with this guy. That does have a socialist connotationo in my opinion, spread the wealt? I do not recall giving a positive note to that writer but I may have since I have read so many. I do not remember. I will make pay more attention to that and follow that socialist guidance, take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 04:33 PM
 
39,536 posts, read 39,195,865 times
Reputation: 11589
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Plain and simple.
I would much, much rather have my taxes going to help out those who are legitimately in need than having my taxes go to subsidize the tax-evading, government-subsidized corporations of this country (you have heard the term "corporate welfare"?).

Also realize the social cost of thousands of homeless people on the streets. This scenario will unsettle the status quo pretty fast. Tax payers will pay one way or another to aid the bottom tiers, always have, always will. It's what keeps the ball rolling, and the rich rich. The rich need a middle class (which in turn needs a lower class) in order to survive, whether they realize it or not (and of course, they don't).
But you also have to really look at where the government revenews come form at what per ceantage to determine who pays for what. The top ten per cent include corproation actally pay for most things.Now days 49% pay no federal income tax and 69% get more services than they pay for. Never confuse having tax withheld with actually paying anything by april 15th.We now have the highest corporate taxes i the world. Then their are alot of other taxes that have nothig to do with subsidizig corporations when the truth of who poays is known. Large per cenatage of american are subdized by corporations both at the local ;state and federal levelss ib the real truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-08-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
21,164 posts, read 15,288,112 times
Reputation: 29481
What percentage of them were born to unwed mothers? Unwed mothers that didn't finish high school? That's the problem that has to be fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:37 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top