poverty in suburbia

let's talk about something besides bush & kerry for a while.

the following article interested me, because issues involving welfare rights and rights of the poor have always hit close to home. pay attention, however: poverty does not equal welfare and unemployment. what this article is discussing is the working poor: sometimes even two-income households cannot make rent.

to me, as i was reading this, many questions were raised about implications in the article and class divisions in the US. what are the assumptions we have about the poor? the article mentioned the "razing" of slums in the cities - does this imply that poor people "belong" in slums? do we really believe this? why? to me, this article brings up so many questions about classism, how the media deals with it, and the (media-fed) assumptions of the "average" person in the middle class, i'm not sure where to start. i'd like to add that in spite of the date on the article, this only appeared on yahoo at most for a few brief hours this morning - it was removed from the top news stories even as i posted it here, while a story about the movie "shark tale" doing well in the box office was up all night long. why is a story about a children's movie considered more important than the coverage of the rise of poverty in suburbia and the shattering of the illusions of the middle class? please read, and discuss:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=8&u=/usatoday/20041018/ts_usatoday/suburbsgrassisntalwaysgreener

 

This is a mess. We are the richest country in the world, yet more and more are hitting the poverty level. At the same time our country is gaining more and more billionaires...

Ever feel like you're being exploited for someone elses gain?

 

The thing is (as I’ve posted before) there is this difficulty in discussing economic hardship in the US because the right wing do not want to talk about it.

Do a post in support of abortion or gay marriage and every right wingers in the hip world universe will be there, giving you a huge slab of their opinion. So you can at least try and get a debate going over why they have their opinion.

But dangle something like this in fount of them and they don’t want to bit.

An interesting question would be to ask why that is??

**

To me it seems to be about what they think they know.

They think they know about gay marriage and abortion but they soon find out that they don’t but then don’t like to admit they know nothing.

Whereas they already know they know nothing about such stuff as US poverty.

**

But I’m sure they can prove me wrong!


**

 

Balbus,

I posted this article on your “Crime” thread:

https://www.ccda.org/Library/Just Generosity.pdf

and here’s how you replied:

The article was written by Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action:

http://www.esa-online.org

I’m a member of ESA, not Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition. ESA’s political philosophy doesn’t line up well with either of the major US political parties, though a few maverick politicians from both parties (like Republican Mark Hatfield and Democrats Bob Casey and Tony Hall) that have come pretty close to sharing ESA’s vision. However, at the presidential level, ESA has never been able to endorse a candidate, instead trying to equip individual members to evaluate the pros and cons of the choices available. For me, the magnitude of the abortion holocaust outweighs all other issues combined, but this doesn’t mean that I march in lock step with the Republican party. As I’ve said many times before, “pro-life” and “right-wing” are not synonymous. Besides ESA, peruse the CCDA web site where Sider’s article is posted. You’ll find that dreaded evangelicals are quite immersed in combating poverty.

 

No. It's simply stating that poor people from the cities are moving into the suburbs.

Because news outlets determine the importance of a story based on how popular they think it'll be, not on how "important" it is.

One thing that pissed me off about the article was when Ms. Haney claimed that she'd need $70,000 a year "for quality of life". Fuck her. This is why I have a hard time sympathizing with such people. I experienced circumstances similar to hers. My mother struggled mightily after my parents divorced. We were no longer able to live in the manner which we'd grown accustomed to. That's just how it goes sometimes. Many middle class people in this country seem to think they're entitled to luxury. Such arrogance pisses me off to no end, and it's why so many people around the world think Americans are asses.

 

That's the biggest load of shit ever. The reason right wingers never really talk about it is because they don't have a real way to solve it, neither do left-wingers, but left-wingers are willing to increase unemployment, welfare, food stamps and what not, so when they talk about it, to the poor it seems like a solution.

 

Left-wingers want to increase unemployment...

Are you saying t hat because that is actually what you believe, or becuase you thought it sounded good?

That's is a perfect example of right-wingers not wanting to talk about it. All we get is some jargon that liberals want to give hand-outs to everyone. Or that any liberal idea is a bad one.

We are talking about livable wages and availability of jobs here, not increasing welfare.

 

As for poverty in higher class suburbia, my friend has a HUGE house and lots of land and he seems VERY rich, but behind all this, they can barely afford their house, and they are on multiple loans for it, they can barely pay the electriciy and for water. Just because you seem and look rich doesn't mean anything. There was a murder in my town last year, and they found out it was the husband, and they also found out that he had killed her because she was having an affair with another man, why? because they had a huge house and everything they could need, but they were literally broke and couldn't afford shit, and their credit levels were through the roof. Makes you think when you roll through a rich suburban neighborhood...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

This is an illustration of American overconsumption, not poverty.

 

I mean unemployment benefits.

 

Huck

Oh yes of course you’re not a right winger, GATHER ROUND everyone this is Huck and he is NOT a right winger, Oh yes HE DOES VOTE RIGHT WING but he tells us he is not a right winger. PLEASE STOP THAT SNIGGERING AT THE BACK.

Huck we can understand you want to support -

A large increase in minimum wage, but vote Republican
A vast increase in education budgets, but vote Republican
A drive to full employment, but vote Republican
A expensive renovation of peoples environments, but vote Republican
Wealth distribution, but vote Republican
A changes in market led culture, but vote Republican
An ending of corporate welfare, but vote Republican
A national health service, but vote Republican
A better environment, but vote Republican

So Huck it is obvious that you understand what benefits could come from a more equitable social and economic structure (I SAID STOP THAT SNIGGERING).

The only problem to your full commitment to truly helping people, is the question of abortion, and that sounds fair.

EXCEPT that I’m sure many people here might have read your ‘arguments’ on that subject in the abortion thread (or they can do).

It is rather clear there that you have no desire to understand the issues involved or a willingness to truly help people, preferring instead to stick to the dogmatic enforcement of a seemingly faith based doctrine.

There you proclaim clearly that social, economic and cultural factors are of little importance, what is of far greater value is, well I’m just not quite sure but I think it has something to do with the conflict between, good and evil, moral and immoral, and hedonists and ascetics. The kind of absolute judgements that make understanding peoples problems in the real world and therefore the ability to help them very difficult.

So Huck of course you are part of the solution not part of the problem.

The sniggering seems to have stopped, maybe people realise that your stance is not so funny?


**

 

**


The thing that first caught my eye in the article was the statement by Kate Haney that to have “quality of life, it would take $70,000” in her area.

From what I’ve read and heard it seems that many Americans believe that it is the individuals ‘responsibility’ to achieve a degree of ‘quality of life’. I think that attitude needs to change for the society to change.

To me, a reasonable quality of life should be the communities not the individuals goal.

It should be about everyone having a safe and clean environment, not the poor being trapped in unhealthily areas while the more affluent move away. (since one day there will be nowhere left to escape to)

A reasonable level of healthcare shouldn’t be a commodity it should be a right.

And so on.

As to welfare there will always be people that will try and abuse it just as there will always be those that try and fiddle their taxes.



**

 

I live in Oregon, where we've raised the minimum wage through ballot initiative.

Actually, I think a voucher system would be more helpful than pouring yet more money into the broken state monopoly system.

To my knowledge, most of Europe has higher unemployment rates than the US. What solution(s) would you recommend?

I don't even know what you mean by this.

You'd have to be much more specific about this. I don't support taking money from some and simply handing it out to others.

Again, this is too vague to answer.

I don't know that Democrats have a much better record on this.

I'm undecided on this, which should be clear from my posts on the "Universal Health Coverage" thread.

I agree that Democrats tend to be better for the environment, but that doesn't even begin to tip the scales when compared to their (usual) support for the state-sanctioned slaughter of the unborn.

 

**

Just boil down Hucks replies and what you get is ‘ …yes but…not sure…don’t know…unsure…you say’?

For someone that is so morally sure and dogmatic in some of his views he seems a bit wishy washy when it comes to social, economic and cultural issues and their importance?

Is this because he believes that although social, economic and cultural influences ‘may’ exist they have very little baring on why people act the way they do, that you know that is down to how moral or immoral a person is?


**

Huck

How should quality of life be achieved?


**

 

Balbus,

If you don't like being "wishy washy," try clarifying your pitifully vague policy prescriptions for:

achieving full employment
"expensive renovation of people's environments"
wealth redistribution
"changes in market-led culture"

I think my answers to your other points were pretty clear. I don't apologize for being undecided about the wisdom of nationalizing health care. People have raised some very valid concerns about such a system on the "Universal Healthcare" thread:
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35810

Why don't you address them there? Maybe you could allay my concerns.

 

**

My dear Huck

"your pitifully vague policy prescriptions"

Not mine they seem to be the ESA position and you said you were a member?

Don't you remember ranting about NOT being a right winger?


**

 

Maybe you could provide specific quotes? I've read a few of Ron Sider's books, and he's usually somewhat precise in his policy analysis. However, his "Just Generosity" article is regrettably short on details concerning health care policy.

 

**

Oh so it was Ron Sider's fault for being 'pitifully vague' then, well that’s ok. Cheers Huck for putting us all straight about that.
So since you have read a few of his books you can fill us in on the details that were missing in the regrettably short article, about these social, economic and cultural policies then?

Thanks

Balbus



**

 

Balbus,

You often accuse me of reacting to posts instead of carefully reading and responding to them. You might want to consider heeding your own advice.

I said that Sider's discussion of health care was vague, and I remain undecided on how best to expand coverage for the uninsured. I've asked you to contribute to a discussion on another thread devoted to that topic, and you've declined.

Unlike your taunts, Sider's other proposals in the article are fairly specific:

Expand the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
Strengthen the food stamp program
Raise the minimum wage a little
Change and expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit
Guarantee a job for everyone able and willing to work

I think the first 4 are pretty straightforward and realistic, but I'm not sure about the last one. I don't know how the government can guarantee full employment, but I do think that a massive investment in repairing/rebuilding aging infrastructure (bridges, water and sewer lines, treatment plants, etc.) would be good place to start. However, I haven't heard either presidential candidate propose anything like this, let alone a way to pay for it.

While some of Sider's ideas are more likely to be supported by Democrats than Republicans, others are not, such as the importance of strengthening 2-parent (straight, married) families or expanding religious school voucher programs and funding of faith-based charities.

 

You often accuse me of reacting to posts instead of carefully reading and responding to them. You might want to consider heeding your own advice.


Hey dude, forgive me for being like confused, I mean when you thought they were my policy prescriptions they were pitifully vague but then when I pointed out they were not mine but came from an article you had linked to they suddenly become fairly specific

I said that Sider's discussion of health care was vague, and I remain undecided on how best to expand coverage for the uninsured. I've asked you to contribute to a discussion on another thread devoted to that topic, and you've declined.

I haven’t declined, I just haven’t got round to it, I do have a life away from here you know and over the years here I’ve had many discussions on that very subject. My general position is that I favour a UK style NHS system but that anything that has such a vast job as to look after a nations health need to be adaptable and pragmatic so to fix a system in stone is a bit silly. My view on the US system is that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have too much power and hold up reform in that area and that US governments have decided to priorities the military/industrial complex over national health. Sorry but that will have to do for the moment.

I like your Rooseveltian New Deal ideas on infrastructure construction (I would also add schools, libraries and hospitals). I’ve given my views on education vouchers several times and I’m against them. As to social engineering it depends how it is done?

The thing that gets me with your stance is that you seem willing to vote against most of what you believe in, as if you would vote for the taliban because they were against abortion, even when knowing what they were like otherwise. (As to the abortion issue I’m not sure you actually want to reduce the numbers and are more interested in pushing your religious views, but that’s another thread).

I couldn’t do it (support the right wing ) and so far you haven’t explained in any reasonable way why you do, I can only think therefore that you don’t care, accept or are even in favour of the right wing policies you are trying to help bring in.





**