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.
Maybe I should have said "unable." And what do you mean "middle class norms"? Ensuring that their children learn productive habits?
Children of any class should not be raised the way grizzly bear cubs are raised, i.e. mothers that are fiercely loyal (link) but don't teach skills needed for human society. The skill set is different.
Agree, with "middle-class norms" the norms of the "mainstream." Responsibility for self, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"The Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Americans (55%) have received government benefits..."
No ONE is debating this, so why the constant harp on it?
The PROBLEM is those that have made a LIFEHOOD of the system.
There are GENERATIONS of women who have never been OFF welfare their ENTIRE LIVES, food stamps, gov't housing etc.
Agree.
The question, of course, is how. The most effective counter to generational poverty might well be intense focus on the very young (along with their custodial parent and minor siblings) in some sort of "therapeutic setting."
That's an approach at odds with the current practice of attempting to maintain family groupings through housing programs like section 8. The earlier emphasis on public housing served only to further isolate dysfunctional communities and create problematic ghettos.
Trying to fund separate households isn't that cost viable (there are long waiting lists with, in some cities, maybe only 1 in 4 eligible households served) plus leads to understandable resentment from working taxpayers who also struggle with high housing costs.
That resentment I can appreciate. It's one thing to feed the poor and the heal the sick but another entirely to expect them to be housed right next door at a fraction of the cost you pay. The elderly maybe, the disabled but resentment of healthy adults of working age is understandable. Particularly if generational poverty remains.
A potential problem though is that any further segregation of young women (it is usually the women or perhaps the grandparents who have custody) in an effort to "civilize" (or socialize) young children to middle-class norms may have an adverse impact on that civilization process of young men that Stephen Pinker spoke about.
Maybe it's time for some sort of about face (in the approach). But again, approaches that might work in urban areas might be totally ineffective in isolated rural areas where the generational poverty issue has different components.
Is that really your opinion of poor people? Without a nanny state from cradle to grave they will rot?
Its not my opinion its a tangible fact. The USA used to do that and we were much the worse for it. Third world nations also have no programs and they are much the worse for it. The problem is people like you live in a different world than the poor. You see being poor as a moral and ethical failing and are confused as why they simply can't bootstrap there way out. If you look at self made millionaires for example the majority all came from middle class and higher backgrounds. It is very rare indeed to see a truly destitute individual rise to the upper classes. Whether you want to admit it or not the USA has massive class divisions and simply telling the poor to suck rocks is not going to lead to a better society.
I don't believe that a woman with young children would be cutoff from help in your state after two years. Most of these programs are funded by lots of federal dollars.
I know of one friend of mine that has had section 8 for over 10 years. She is a single mom with a son. She pays $100 a month for an apartment that should be about $800 a month. Gets food stamps and free medical care. If she can't pay the light bill she can get it paid once or twice a year. And she is forced to work around the system so as to not make too much money that will end or limit her benefits. Its a big disincentive to get off the dependency of government handouts.
And this is a red state. Her mom was a drug addict who got welfare when she was growing up. Her son is very gifted and is one of the best students in his school and looks to break the cycle.
Earlier in the thread I read a post about the resentment about section 8. Curious, I googled a bit. There does not appear to be a cut-off for residency with a clear incentive to ensure that your income remains low. What's also problematic is that so many of the poor who might qualify for assistance do not get it because of the long waiting lists. Too, the older public housing stock still exists with much of it in bad repair.
So we have this patchwork system (for families or, it's mainly women, with children) of being shuttled between family-shelters, motels, with hopes they'll finally make it into section 8 (or maybe a better public housing unit). If the goal is to promote self-sufficiency (and positive role models for children) ... this appears to be neither cost efficient nor an effective means to bring about generational change.
And most still fall through the cracks. Most of the models of the past have not worked. Removing children from the parents (into forced adoption or institutions). Segregating the poor in public housing. Trying to immerse them in more upscale areas thru Section 8.
This may sound Dicksonian. But I'm not sure that the current approach of subsidizing "households" is that workable. Maybe some new approach more like a college dorm with high-quality childcare for children from age 1 ... intensive parenting classes ... training ... work requirements. Sure some might opt out, their right. But every parent has the obligation to provide adequate care for their children.
Section 8 for the elderly and disabled is a different issue. And again, there's no place for hunger or malnutrition in America with the sick uncared for.
Defense IS in the Constitution, the others are NOT!
Same Clause.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United Stated."
I worked in gov't housing projects and other section 8 housing.
The WASTE, FRAUD and ABUSE is RAMPANT.
It could be cut by 80%
Section 8 housing waiting list has not been open here and in most western cities for over a decade...and that is the waiting list not the housing.
How do you save 80% when the cost is virtually all subsidy to the renter? Even if you throw a number of people out the waiting lists will simply fill them back up.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United Stated."
Maybe 'general welfare' means making sure the military generals have adequate supports?
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.
