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.
By the homeless I'm referring to people living on the street.
By "through no fault of their own", I am referring to people who did all the things they are supposed to do, but still ended up homeless. What I am not including are drug addicts, alcoholics, the work-shy, people who decided to reproduce with jerks knowing full well they are jerks, etc. In other words, many homeless people in some way contributed to their own homelessness through their actions.
Obviously, people with severe mental illnesses are not at fault, which also is a significant portion of the homeless population.
So you consider temporary shelters "homes" because they can sleep in a bed at night? What about people who bounce from weekly motel to motel? There's a whole lot more to the homeless population than just people literally living on the street. Not having a permanent address makes it almost impossible to get a job, for example.
I guess I should have expected kneejerk reactions.
Anyone who has ever worked with the poor knows that the attitude of poverty gets passed from generation to generation. Pull a random social worker aside and ask her for her observation. She will tell you that it's always the same people across generations applying for benefits. Teen girls see no other path in life except get pregnant and apply for benefits. Teen boys see no other alternative but to sleep around and impregnate girls.
Here are some links for info on generational poverty and how learned helplessness gets passed down from generation to generation.
So, please no more kneejerk reaction. As I have stated many times before, the problem of poverty cannot be solved by throwing money at it. We have been throwing money at it for over 5 decades. It's doing the same thing over and over expecting different results even though we keep getting the same results.
Learned helplessness is definitely a real thing. The lower classes have been screwed the most by the American crony capitalist system, so it's hard to blame them for feeling the way they do. And they end up passing that mentality on to the next generation.
So you consider temporary shelters "homes" because they can sleep in a bed at night? What about people who bounce from weekly motel to motel? There's a whole lot more to the homeless population than just people literally living on the street.
You missed my point. In many other places in the world, poverty means the inability to get food, the inability to get clothes, and a complete lack of shelter from the elements. Is sleeping in a temporary shelter good or ideal? Of course not, but its a hell of a lot better than the untold numbers of people, including young children, that have to sleep rough all of the time because there is no such thing as a temporary shelter. In places like Bangladesh, the highway median is their "temporary shelter".
My point is that Americans get their three basic needs met whereas that is not a given in much of the world.
I don't think its an immoral idea since it is completely voluntary. It just wouldn't eliminate poverty. American "poverty" isn't at all the same thing as international poverty. American poverty is relative to how other Americans are doing financially. The concept of American poverty is a useful, highly flexible tool for politicians to utilize to push for their preferred policy programs.
One could already make the argument that there is no true poverty in the US. No one is starving to death. All Americans can get basic clothing if they need it. Relatively few Americans are truly homeless through no fault of their own.
I guess my underlying point is that while the OP's idea would probably improve society, it wouldn't eliminate "poverty" because poverty would simply be defined in some new way.
While I agree with you that the nature or definition of poverty changes from time to time and country to country, the attitude of poverty remains the same.
I grew up in poverty. I'm not talking about American poverty. I'm talking about 3rd world type of poverty. I remember when I was little there were days when us kids were told to sleep all day because there wasn't anything to eat that day.
The fact of the matter is no matter how you define poverty or where you are, the attitude of poverty remains the same. It is the human psychological condition called learned helplessness that persists and gets passed down from generation to generation. An impoverished person in America may not be starving like an impoverished person in Africa, but they both feel completely helpless and from their point of view no matter what they do their situation will never change.
My siblings and I were very fortunate because our poverty was not due to generational poverty. It was because of politics and my parents were intellectuals before the communists took over and started their war against educated people.
We are told that it is politically incorrect for us to try to stop poor people from breeding. And it is an undisputable fact that impoverished people have the highest birthrate among all groups of people. What's worse, teenage pregnancies are rampant in these poor communities.
The idea I put down in the OP isn't mine. It was written on here in another thread a couple weeks ago. I cannot find anything logically wrong with it.
Well for starters, how about there are people out there who work their a$$ off for $2000.00/month and their taxes would be paying for it?
I've also considered the idea from this angle. How about this. We'll call it an investment to stop, or at least slow down, poor people's birthrates. The result won't be seen for at least a generation. It's a long term investment.
What part of the word voluntary don't you understand? Another kneejerk reaction?
I was referring to the poster who wrote "No one who is unable to support themselves should be allowed to have any more children. It's not fair to taxpayers or the children."
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.
