reality vs. leftist idealism (reality wins again)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/me…
Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.
…Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis/s hometown turned into America/s new South Bronx? Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades…
When his map was complete, a clear if strangely shaped pattern emerged… The inner city, where crime used to be concentrated, was now clean. But everywhere else looked much worse: arrests had skyrocketed along two corridors north and west of the central city …. little islands of crime had sprung up where none had existed before, dotting the map all around the city.
Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis… Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8″ rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community…
Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals… On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.
Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed - and deflated – t o see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country. Eventually, they thought, they’d find other researchers who connected the dots the way they had, and then maybe they could get city leaders, and even national leaders, to listen.
So it’s not tough urban environments that cause crime, but a criminal underclass, and when you move the criminal underclass out into the burbs, you move the crime with them, and the criminal underclass is not perfectly representative of the racial makeup of the country?
If I was 15 years younger, I’d throw in a few “LMAO” and “ROFL” and such.
As it is, I’ll merely note that this is yet another perfect storm of suck for the leftists, where reality contradicts several of their sacred dogmas (and their reaction will almost certainly be “so much the worse for reality”).
June 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Maybe the folks in the “burbs” will now be forced to actually help solve the problems of crime – unless of course, the folks in the “burbs” decide to once again sprawl out even further in an effort to ignore the reality that problems do exist in this world. When wealthy people leave, so does business – you know what happens next? In come pawn shops and title loan businesses. Without a mix of resources, poor neighborhoods get left with predatory businesses, which breeds further poverty and crime.
Do you realize that most of the old projects were established prior to the civil rights movement? Do you think there may have been some racial factors that influenced where and how those projects were established? The roots run deep and the effects of those decisions linger very strongly today.
You can go ahead and search for your peaceful perfect suburb – meanwhile, I’ll take growing pains of progress because I believe that everyone has the right to live in a place that is safe – not just wealthy white people.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:30 am
[quote comment="147020"]Maybe the folks in the “burbs” will now be forced to actually help solve the problems of crime[/quote]
Well, if by “solve”, you mean “harsher sentences, longer jail terms”, then, yes, they’ve solved them.
This may not be what you had in mind, but it certainly has cut the rate of street crime over the past few decades.
[quote comment="147020"]
– unless of course, the folks in the “burbs” decide to once again sprawl out even further in an effort to ignore the reality that problems do exist in this world.
[/quote]
How is distancing yourself from violent, disreputable people “ignoring” it? It’s a perfectly rational response.
Am I “ignoring” tigers because I don’t choose to live inside an animal cage at a zoo?
Am I “ignoring” rain because I have a roof over my head?
Exactly the opposite!
[quote comment="147020"]
When wealthy people leave, so does business
[/quote]
Nonsense. There are tons of businesses in poor areas.
[quote comment="147020"]
- you know what happens next? In come pawn shops and title loan businesses.
[/quote]
Businesses serve the needs and wants of their clientele.
If you disapprove of pawn shops and such, don’t blame the suburbanites (who have no desire for such services, and thus do not have such services nearby) – blame the habits and memes of the poor which keep them poor, and lead them to frequent pawn shops.
[quote comment="147020"]
Without a mix of resources, poor neighborhoods get left with predatory businesses
[/quote]
What exactly is a predatory business?
[quote comment="147020"]
Do you realize that most of the old projects were established prior to the civil rights movement? Do you think there may have been some racial factors that influenced where and how those projects were established?
[/quote]
So your argument is not that poor people are black, and thus when white society tried to help the poor, they put the projects where the poor people lived, but that instead white people hate blacks, and therefore built projects where black people lived, thus turning them poor?
I’m not really convinced.
[quote comment="147020"]
You can go ahead and search for your peaceful perfect suburb – [/quote]
Already found it. Very very low crime. You know why? Because I live in an area where criminals don’t live.
[quote comment="147020"] I’ll take growing pains of progress [/quote]
Huh?
Being mugged by inner city criminals who have been relocated, at taxpayer expense, to the suburbs is progress?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
You know what else is nice, having a Central Business District that is not overrun with criminals because the benighted thought it was a good idea to concentrate the underclass, including its large criminal element, into large impersonal case studies in human depravity right next to the CBD, Cabrini Green in Chicago is a good example.
Now, I get to live in a downtown that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
inmemphis is wrong in his conclusion that the building of the public housing blocks was racially motivated, or as a way to concentrate and shut off blacks. The entire development of public housing was part of the big liberal consensus, primarily in the north, that pervaded after World War II. If there were any racist dimension, it was in the condescension that was underlying the theory that razing whole black neighborhoods (including thriving businesses) and then building big public housing blocks with large open areas surrounding them was a way to ‘help’ these poor blacks in their crowded, blighted neighborhood. I use the word blight because that is the test for imminent domain, now so abused, that came out of the first big blockbuster imminent domain case which caused the destruction of a large black neighborhood under the aegis of improvement. (it was in D.C., natch, late 1940′s).
I am not surprised that crime has spread after the destruction of these high rises, because they were often subsidized or effectively free, they had the effect of concentrating the criminal element who is immune to daily work. In the long run, I think the destruction of these monstrous development will be a good thing. However, if anyone believed that it would result in the elimination of crime-free neighborhoods, they were fooling themselves.
Part of the problem is the voucher program itself which rewards the shiftless and criminal, though I can’t offer a solution. Shutting down the system would create a lot of homeless of the worst kind.
Also to blame is a culture that rewards the subversion of the law and criminality. Being poor does not mean being criminal, unless you don’t believe in free will.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Well, we obviously have fundamentally different views on how and why the poor are poor. I believe that each of us plays a part in the lives of others. Are some people poor because they are lazy – sure. But I would hope that even you could recognize that some people were born into environments where the necessary skills, resources and opportunities aren’t as readily available. How did those environments come into existance? I guess to you, it’s all the fault of poor people. hmm…sounds convenient for you I guess.
When was the last time you visited an extremely poor area? A quick trip outside of your suburban bubble, and you might discover that businesses actually do leave poor areas. See if you can find a large grocery store around an impoverished project – I doubt you’ll find one. The resources that it takes to support a large grocery store with fresh foods aren’t there – so what happens – the large grocery stores leave. It takes people with resources to support sucessful business.
If you are poor, there is a great possibility that you don’t have a car – so hopping over to the nearest suburb to shop isn’t an easy thing to do. So, instead you buy convenience goods at the local cornerstore.
What happens when businesses like large grocery stores and other businesses leave? People lose jobs. What happens when people lose jobs – crime increases.
Do you realize that by moving further away, you are only dragging jobs and resources out to another place? It’s just a matter of time before those looking for those jobs and resources find their way out to you. Why not work to intentionally create a mix of incomes that is better suited to sustain the mix of economic classes, instead of moving as soon as you see a poor person walking by your house?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I know your comment is directed at Travis, but I’d like to respond:
Hmm, last time would have been last weekend. I also live eight blocks from one of the remaining housing projects in downtown Chicago (I live in the most racially diverse neighborhood in the city). I am extremely familiar and know my way around the Near South and have driven near every road on it. I am less familiar with the west side or far south-west side. I am also familiar with the local politicians in the S. Side.
There were thriving black businesses in the South Side that were killed by the criminality the spread from the high-rise projects (like the Robert Taylor homes on S. State street.) AND an atmosphere of permissiveness that did not arrive until the 1960′s. Average Black family income was rising up through the forties and fifties and hit a disaster in the 1960′s.
Being poor is not being criminal, but it’s also not an excuse to be also.
As for your comment about jobs and resources, you obviously believe in a zero-sum idea of business and wealth creation. Certain businesses leave crime-ridden areas because it’s hard to make money when you’re being robbed all the time. There are areas, particularly S. Side Chicago, where my expertise lies, that would benefit from more business development, but some businesses only work when people can afford them, others can’t get in because of local politicians. All the jobs and cheep goods Wal-Mart would have brought to S. Chicago, didn’t, because local politicians wanted their rings kissed, instead they set up right over the line in a near suburb. (The one on the West Side, another tough neighborhood, is thriving and has attracted other businesses).
June 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you are desperately poor, you have at least some way to rationalize stealing for food. That’s it. Food.
The fact that people are being shot for iPods, jackets and sneakers and drugs demonstrates that it is not poverty that drives crime, but greed and an entitlement mentality.
If I were king, anyone in Section 8 housing that committed a crime more serious than stealing food would be moved to a public housing project in the hinterboonies… that had a tall electric fence around it.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
It is pretty much patently ovbious to anyone with half a clue.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
[quote comment="147026"]I believe that each of us plays a part in the lives of others.[/quote]
I agree with that.
[quote comment="147026"] Are some people poor because they are lazy – sure. [/quote]
I believe that I’ve read that something like 75% of those in poverty would be above the poverty line if they worked at the same hourly rate, but for 40 hrs per week.
The vast majority of the poverty “problem” in the US is people choosing not to work.
[quote comment="147026"] But I would hope that even you could recognize that some people were born into environments where the necessary skills, resources and opportunities aren’t as readily available. [/quote]
Not “as” available? Sure.
“Not” available? No.
I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone that hard work and showing up on time are the route to a decent lifestyle.
[quote comment="147026"] How did those environments come into existence? I guess to you, it’s all the fault of poor people. [/quote]
Mostly, yes.
[quote comment="147026"] hmm…sounds convenient for you I guess. [/quote]
Just because it’s convenient doesn’t mean that it’s false.
[quote comment="147026"] When was the last time you visited an extremely poor area? [/quote]
I used to live in West Roxbury, and took the bus through Roxbury, and then took the orange line.
I saw a lot of people hanging out on curbs and stoops, not working.
[quote comment="147026"] A quick trip outside of your suburban bubble, and you might discover that businesses actually do leave poor areas. [/quote]
Absolutely.
When shop lifting rates go up, when customer support costs go up, when the quality of the labor force goes down (as measure by their willingness to show up on time), etc., some businesses leave.
How many Volvo dealerships or Whole Foods markets does the ghetto need?
[quote comment="147026"] See if you can find a large grocery store around an impoverished project – I doubt you’ll find one. [/quote]
True.
Poor people shoplift more.
Convenience stores have more clerks per customer, and have better sight lines to stop shoplifting.
[quote comment="147026"] The resources that it takes to support a large grocery store with fresh foods aren’t there [/quote]
Poor people have enough money to have large TVs, to have cell phones, to buy enough food to become more obese than the rest of society, to buy more cigarettes than the rest of society, to buy more lottery tickets than the rest of society.
If poor people want to spend their money on these things instead of fresh produce, how is that anyone’s problem but their own?
[quote comment="147026"] It takes people with resources to support successful business. [/quote]
Have you ever run a business?
I’ve run two.
The main thing it takes to support a successful business is customers who want to spend money.
[quote comment="147026"] What happens when businesses like large grocery stores and other businesses leave? People lose jobs. What happens when people lose jobs – crime increases. [/quote]
You’re just not getting it.
[quote comment="147026"] Do you realize that by moving further away, you are only dragging jobs and resources out to another place? [/quote]
I’m not “dragging jobs” anywhere.
I’m creating jobs.
[quote comment="147026"] It’s just a matter of time before those looking for those jobs and resources find their way out to you. [/quote]
Wait a second – a minute ago, these people didn’t have cars, and thus they are stuck with poor stores.
…but now they are inevitably going to “follow me” out into the burbs?
Hmmm.
[quote comment="147026"] Why not work to intentionally create a mix of incomes that is better suited to sustain the mix of economic classes [/quote]
I don’t want a mix of incomes, nor do I want a mix of economic classes.
I want everyone to get off their asses and work hard enough to join the middle class.
If they don’t care to, and prefer to drink malt liquor on a front porch during the day, or prefer to rob people, and/or prefer to engage in all sorts of ghetto behaviors that I do no like (yelling at movie theater screens, using profanity loudly in public, playing music loudly, etc.), then they can do that somewhere far away from me.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
If you disapprove of pawn shops and such, don’t blame the suburbanites (who have no desire for such services, and thus do not have such services nearby
On the contrary – pawn shops are excellent places to buy tools and electronics. One nice thing about living in a smaller town is that the pawn shops are just a hop-skip-and-jump away.
Plus we don’t have projects. On the other hand we do have Section 8 Housing and similar problems as noted in the article.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I have to admit, your line by line breakdown of my comments are impressive! Here are some more “killing words”…
Again, we have a fundamentally different view of how and why the poor are poor. I actually do understand your perspective, I just disagree with some of your conclusions.
My life experiences have actually allowed me to get to know a lot of “poor” people and I know from their lives that the accusation that they are just lazy is completely false. But I won’t spend time arguing that point.
ElamBend – good points – I too live a few blocks away from a housing project. Our neighborhood has become mixed income over the last 5 or 6 years – because of this, just recently numerous businesses and social services have also been introduced. Now my next door neighbor (a section 8 voucher resident) can walk to the nearby Kroger grocery instead of the corner store, saving her money and allowing her to eat a much healthier diet. She also went through a new job training program and now has a steady full time job. A new community credit union also just opened down the street as well. This credit union works to educate people about the dangers of title loans and other predatory lenders that are so prevalent. As I talked to her about these lenders, she had no idea that there was such a difference between these loans and what we would consider a fair loan.
The problem with poverty is that, when people are born into it, that is all they know. When people aren’t given the opportunity to learn, you can’t blame them for the outcome. Isolating poverty only breeds more poverty.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
When was the last time you visited an extremely poor area? A quick trip outside of your suburban bubble,
I know you’re speaking to Travis but .. you might gain more traction if you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with your assumptions is an ignorant boob.
I’m not going to get in a pissing match about who has more poverty cred – ’cause that’s just dumb. But do consider that some people actually know what they’re talking about, and you hold no monopoly on the Truth.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across like that – I was just surprised by his comment that said businesses don’t leave poor neighborhoods, hence the question – “when was the last time you visited an extremely poor area?” Businesses do leave, it’s pretty obvious.
I definitely hold no monopoly on truth though, in fact more often than not, I am the “ignorant boob”. I am just wrestling with these issues and have had my eyes opened to some of the causes and effects of poverty in the lives of people I live amongst. I’m no expert though, so I’m always open to being wrong, I just hope that others will have the same openess to my thoughts on the subject.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is news? Anecdotally, at least, we’ve known this for years. The LA Times, years ago when I used to read it, ran a multi-part Pulitzer-bait story on parents who moved from Compton and Inglewood to high desert cities like Palmdale and Lancaster to get their kids out of gangs … where said kids invited their old friends up to help them set up new chapters in these lucrative new markets.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Let’s see… The Wise Planners moved people as though they were chess pieces into high rises and produced a crime wave. They learned a lesson from that and then the Wise Planners moved people as though they were chess pieces out of high rises and produced a crime wave.
Maybe the problem is caused by treating human beings like chess pieces.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
inmemphis: You’re an idiot.
My dad grew up working in a sweatshop, the son of laborers and the grandson of peasants. He came to this country with just a few hundred dollars. Within a decade he was not only not poor, he had a PhD from one of our top science institutions.
I grew up watching dirt poor immigrants make something of themselves.
Every year I watch a million Mexicans hike over the Sonoran desert for just a few bites of the endless buffet of opportunity that American citizens are offered. If that Mexican can get a job, with his sixth-grade Mexican education, his lousy (but improving) English, with nothing but a strong work ethic and a strong back, there are no excuses for any American citizen, with twelve years of free schooling, and free college to anyone who can prove himself on an AP test or in the armed services.
My dad used to say that if I couldn’t make it in this country, it was one hundred percent my fault.
He was right.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Thankfully you had a good dad who taught you those values. But what if you had no dad or any positive role models in your life whatsoever? I suspect your perspective on life might be a little different. Can you concede that his influence on you provided you with a motivation and drive to succeed? Others aren’t so lucky.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
If inmemphis is going to be called on a semi-snide remark in what is otherwise a fairly civil expression of his views, I’m going to have to call secret asian man on outright expressions of hostility such as “You’re an idiot”. Not a great way to preface your point, nor to encourage folks who don’t visit this blog regularly (as far as I can tell- forgive me if I’m wrong) to contribute their opinions.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Too many people who grew up in poor & broken homes have succeeded for that to be an excuse.
Kids run with other bad kids for one reason: It’s simply more fun than staying home and studying.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
inmemphis: My situation isn’t particularly meaningful. I grew up with most of the benefits of citizenship. Being Asian means not having equal consideration before the law when applying for jobs or college, unfortunately.
But how do you explain my father coming to this country as a teenager, with no money, and succeeding? You can’t. So you’re the one that needs to concede.
You know what the biggest hole in your argument about people taking jobs away from poor neighborhoods is? There are jobs in poor neighborhoods. There are businesses in the bleakest, most crime-ridden ghettos.
They’re owned by Lebanese, or Chinese, or Koreans, or Indians…
… people for whom moving to an American ghetto is often a step *up* from where they were raised – and here they are, succeeding, growing, proving day in day out that anyone can succeed here.
Kelly: Hostile? You betcha. I watched my father struggle to achieve financial stability and raise three children in a foreign land. I grew up playing with the children of similar men, watching them struggle and succeed as well. Today I watch my Mexican neighbors go through the same process.
inmemphis’s claim that honest, hard-working people can’t build themselves out of poverty in this country is an insult to men like that.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
[quote comment="147076"][W]hat if you had no dad or any positive role models in your life whatsoever? I suspect your perspective on life might be a little different.[/quote]
I propose a federal program to provide positive role models to poor people! Sure, some people might consider this an attempt to further homogenize American culture, and some will say it’s a racist attempt to destroy black culture (see below), but a massive government program is the only way to solve the problem.
Footnote: Regardless of what you hear on the TV, the destructive culture that happens to be popular with many black Americans is not “black culture.” This destructive culture deserves to be destroyed. On the other hand black culture, including the history and accomplishments of such people as Phyllis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, George Moses Horton, George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, James Derham, Alexander Twilight, Marcus Garvey, Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, Cab Calloway and others should be better known, celebrated, and embraced.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I employ ‘poor’ people. I often use day labor in property development projects.
They all, every single one, 50 or 60 over the last few years, have a complete inability to be ‘consistent’.
Sometimes they work very hard, very well, good skills and knowledge.
Then something twists them off. Sex. Drugs. Booze. Jail. Obsessions of various sorts. Their personal priorities are more important than keeping the job.
I worry about these people. Some of them have worked for me for up to a year, on and off. But they are incapable of change. There is no hope for them unless someone takes them strongly in hand. Sometimes I did it, for a time.
We once had a strongly patriarchal society where there was a desire and institutions to help these people control themselves. Gone. Which is better. I dunno. The worst of the ones I have dealt with seemed happy, most of the time, until their follies led to some smash, from being fired by me to being evicted for not paying rent to getting jailed for driving the car for a room-mate who robbed a bank at gun point. Lost a very good tile-setter on that one. He, honest to God, on a whim, drove a room-mate who told him he was planning a bank job, to the bank and back home.
That’s why inmemphis is wrong, and it is the ever lasting error of the left. People are what they are, not what we want them to be. Irritable and irritating, foul, lazy, stupid, drunken, fornicating, stealing, violent cousins of monkeys. And yes, often the reverse of all of that. But not as often as lefties think.
Inmemphis, I expect you think GWB or Cheney are evil. Think hard. if GWB or Cheney can be evil, why cannot ‘poor’ people?
It is still our duty to help them, but please, sometimes a kick up their arses is the best possible help.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
read “up from slavery”, and “the life of frederick douglass”. Look at high school graduation rates. Weep.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
[quote comment="147076"]Thankfully you had a good dad who taught you those values. But what if you had no dad or any positive role models in your life whatsoever? I suspect your perspective on life might be a little different. Can you concede that his influence on you provided you with a motivation and drive to succeed? Others aren’t so lucky.[/quote]
Does this mean that we’re agreed that motivation and drive to succeed, so long as they lead to a person working 50+ hours a week and studying for better jobs in their free time, will – barring catastrophic accident – get just about anyone in the US into at least the lower middle class?
Because, if so:
[quote comment="147020"]Maybe the folks in the “burbs” will now be forced to actually help solve the problems of crime [/quote]
What is it that the “folks in the ‘burbs’” are called upon to do? The unemployment rate and the massive number of illegal immigrants suggest that there’s plenty of work available to anyone willing to start at the bottom; continuing education ranges from outright free (GED classes; ESL classes; the library) to heavily subsidized (community college; trade schools) to free-if-you’re-on-the-net (all over the net).
The opportunities are there – can we force people to take them?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
That was a strange reference to GWB and Cheney – I don’t think they are evil. But I believe that people can have bad motives, and that includes everybody – poor people and rich people. Poor people can be accused of those things you listed, but that doesn’t include every poor person. Rich people can be accused of greed and selfishness, but that doesn’t include every single rich person. So if rich people only think about how to make themselves richer, then yes it can impact the lives of the poor. That might be a tough pill to swallow, but it’s true.
As for opportunities available to the poor – No, we can’t force people to take advantage of opportunities, but I would argue that the opportunities are substantially greater for the poor when living in a mixed income environment – more jobs, more services available to them, and they aren’t forced to drive or ride the bus for an hour to get to a grocery store. When some of these stabilizing factors are present, it’s much easier to take full advantage of GED classes, ESL classes, libraries and the such.
That’s just my take – I know I’m outnumbered here, so I’m sure I’ll get blasted some more, but I think it’s worth discussing.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
The article is correct, as anyone who has lived near section 8 housing can attest.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
inmemphis, you’re not getting blasted because you’re outnumbered, you’re getting blasted because nearly all of the commenters on this thread think you’re wrong.
I was raised middle class. I got into drugs (because I liked them) and I became lower class. I got married, and had a child. I was still lower class. I got off drugs, went to school (which I ultimately paid for, with some help from Uncle Sam because I was lower class), found a job, showed up and worked hard, and became middle class again.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Well, that’s what outnumbered means – “nearly all of the commenters on this thread think I’m wrong.” – I agree with that – I’m outnumbered.
But the topic of discussion is, should “Uncle Sam” have offered you help at all. Some here feel that “Uncle Sam” shouldn’t have offered you a dime.
My position is that at some point, “Uncle Sam” can contribute to helping people out of poverty. You are a perfect example of that. Could you have done it on your own. Probably – but for some people, there will be no change unless there are systemic shifts in the way housing and issues relating to the poor are handled.
I’ve never said that people in poverty can’t work their way out. I see it happen all the time. My point is that, by rethinking the “housing project” mentality, our country as a whole will be better off – especially for those who haven’t found their way out of poverty yet.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
My point is that, by rethinking the “housing project” mentality, our country as a whole will be better off – especially for those who haven’t found their way out of poverty yet.
I am sure this is the case. I find it ironic that the government is creating more problems by trying to fix a problem that they created in the first place. The problem they were trying to fix lo those many years ago was, essentially, that people suck and are mean.
It’s situations like this that cause some people to think that, perhaps, the government shouldn’t be in the business of doing anything except establishing a level playing field.
And don’t forget that jobs programs will, generally, be most successful for those who will succeed anyway. You gotta have a certain amount of get-up-and-go to enroll and finish. Some people will not succeed and you can’t make them no matter how good your intentions.
This sucks but that’s how people are.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
In Memphis, you’re losing the debate because your points are inconsistent with logic and evidence. To play off your unfounded beliefs as a difference of opinion is, perhaps, a more fundamental problem of denial.
After your arguments (or assertions) have been roundly deconstructed and destroyed, you fall back to an “all I’m saying is” apology. It seems what you say is that it is easier to improve one’s life position in a nurturing environment. That is a statement without useful value. You cling to a tautology that being poor is hard, and makes it hard to succeed. There’s nothing to argue.
You attempt to redefine the topic as “what Uncle Sam should do for the poor.” For fun, I’ll pretend your first salvo had anything to do with government’s role in society, and not just some racial and class hatred. So, “Uncle Sam” does not exist. There is no unitary benevolent consciousness responsible for the poor. Uncle Sam can do nothing. He is a fiction.
Despite the prejudices in your opening salvo, successful people–usually suburbanites–are willing to donate time and wealth to help the poor. They seem to prefer to do so on their own terms, and with conditions. Charity is not free.
I suggest the question is not how the abstraction of government should address poverty. The systemic shift indicated is away from Great Society coercions, toward restoring the small-scale and personal connections between giver and recipient which are the “fertile ground” in which the poor can flourish.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
well put.