Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
There are no farmer markets here in my city with a population of 1.4 million inhabitants for those in the inner city. The farmer market that does exist is in the more affluent part of town and only available Saturday mornings.
Edited to add: I've also done various web searches and go to the schedule times and dates for the farmers markets to either have no vendors show up to subpar produce.
<shrug> Then it's time to shop at the grocery store and buy the veggies etc. that are on sale and otherwise buy generic canned stuff to save money.
Political parties are irrelevant here. What matters, is improving the life chances, of poor kids in poverty-stricken circumstances.
Most large cities have only one viable political party. The control what goes on in those cities. Since you are identifying a problem that is heavily associated with urban areas I feel it is germane.
So, since "America" is trying to destroy the poor then somehow the cities must be in on it too.
Look no further than Chicago where the poor were INTENTIONALLY placed in projects walled off from the rest of the city by interstates and railroad tracks....by Mayor Daley Sr.
You might have heard of him, he's the same bastion of Americana that had dogs attack MLK during marches there (they marched in Chicago because it was the most segregated city in Chicago) and the DNC protestors that got beat down too.
His son is the current white house chief of staff.
So, I've taken your premise....given specific examples of people doing those things....what do you think?
For some time now, America has done all it can, to destroy the poor; denying them decent housing, healthcare, access to nutritious foods, a quality education, and making it more and more difficult, for them to improve their lives. In the 60s, the poor were seen as valuable enough to society, to be helped to rise up out of poverty. Do you think that the poor will ever again be considered valuable enough in society, to be truly helped to escape poverty, once and for all?
Back in the 1960s the poor were more likely to hold up their end of the social contract. They didn't have kids out of welock, which is a major cause of poverty. Now, thanks to the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s and removing the single parenthood stigma, the out of wedlock birth rate is 40%
<shrug> Then it's time to shop at the grocery store and buy the veggies etc. that are on sale and otherwise buy generic canned stuff to save money.
Subpar produce and mystery canned goods. My mom has been witness to chemical tasting carrots and unable to find decent canned goods in the shelves because all the cans are deeply damaged. They've got the time on their side since they are retired and go when stockers finish stocking shelves. Before retiring, we would get up and 8 am Saturday mornings to get the best products. If you wait until 10 am, it's a mess. What do the people do that work on Saturday do...they get slim pickings!
I take my parents to go Costco or to my HEB and they freeze many items in their deep freezer.
What YOU don't understand, is that the anti-poverty programs of the 60s, were meant to lift the poor out of poverty. .
We understand it quite well. We're saying they didn't work. Giving people money, subsidized housing, and medical care for having kids out of wedlock actually made the problem of poverty worse. The out of wedlock birth rate in 1970 was in the single digits. Now it's 40%.
Back in the 1960s the poor were more likely to hold up their end of the social contract. They didn't have kids out of welock, which is a major cause of poverty. Now, thanks to the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s and removing the single parenthood stigma, the out of wedlock birth rate is 40%
The poor were more ABLE, to 'hold up their end of the social contract'. Back then, there were good-paying jobs, even for those who never attended college. It was easier for only one parent, to support a family in a middle class lifestyle.
A guy who grew up poor in the 60s, could get a decent-paying job doing factory work. If he wanted, he could attend college on the weekends, and/or after work, and get his degree. If he didn't want to attend college, he could still have a decent life working a bluepcollar job.
You posters don't understand, that most of today's poor families can't pull themselves up by their proverbial boot-straps anymore, without assistance. Today's bad economy prevents that.
While we're on the subject of the middle-class, quite a few have become poor themselves, when they lost their jobs in this economy. And they did all of the right things to be successful. They got a college education, they worked hard, and played by society's rules. So, anyone can become poor. It's not only welfare mothers, who are poor!
We feed, house, and clothe the poor. They have access to health care many in the middle class don't have. K-12 education is available to anyone living in this country, rich, poor, and illegal alike. We provide grants for community colleges and universities.
And we do this to the point that as long as it edible, doesn't have alcohol and isn't warm at the time of purchase, it can be bought at the taxpayer's expense. This include potato chips, candy, soda, and any kind of bakery goods such as birthday cakes. And there is a push to throw in restaurants. We provide housing for the poor in neighbourhoods of all socio-economic levels.
What more do you want?
As far as being valued, the poor have never been valued as a group anywhere. There is nothing wrong with being poor, but if you look at that group as a whole there are quite a few things going on that make you question what is going on in their heads.
Just a few of the things...
If you drive through a low-income neighbourhood you start to wonder how it is that people who aren't working never manage to find the time to maintain the landscaping in front of their homes.
May low-income neighbourhoods have trash in the streets.
Crime and vandalism is a problem.
Quite a few of them seem to have a fair collection of cars. Cars are expensive.
They smoke and drink at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. Both are very expensive.
They complain about their economic status in life even though they have cable TV, several cell phones, the latest televisions, iPods and Blue-Ray players.
Of course this isn't all of them, but if you drive through poor neighbourhoods you are invariably going to see quite a few of them walking around yakking on cell phones, listening to their iPod, driving cars with $1800 large wheels, smoking, or drinking.
Then there is their lack of decorum which makes them undesirable to live around.
Now you're stereotyping. ALL poor neighborhoods, are not like you describe. Neither are ALL poor people! There are many intelligent, well-mannered poor people. They are all individuals, just like those at higher socio-economic levels. Shame on you, for falling-back on such blatant stereotypes!
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
They've got the time on their side since they are retired and go when stockers finish stocking shelves. Before retiring, we would get up and 8 am Saturday mornings to get the best products. If you wait until 10 am, it's a mess. What do the people do that work on Saturday do...they get slim pickings! 
