"Why I Stayed"

[Jacob]

There are lots of people who have a lot to say about how to begin to solve the problems associated with poverty.  But there has to be the political will to do something about it and, as I posted above, that seems to be completely missing as these kids have essentially been written off.

Yeah. It doesn't seem like the problem for these kids, and for the area they're in, is that tons of money have been thrown at solving their problems but that the money has been misallocated. It seems rather, like you say, that they've been written off.

[merithyn]

Meri, I have no problem with that - I agree that one should in fact do exactly that.

But people have been doing that for, well, most of human history to one degree or another, and yet we still have, in the wealthiest nation in the world, entire portions of our population that are mired in this fucked up reality.

Yes, if everyone did a little more, than maybe the problem would be solved. Actually, I don't really believe that, but that isn't the point, at least it isn't my point.

I am jsut saying that continuing to do the same thing hasn't made this problem go away at the systemic level. Yes, you can solve the problem at the individual level, but that is no real solution overall.

I understand that. I just can't do anything about those things. I can only fix that which I come in contact with. If I focus on everything that I can't do, it becomes overwhelming.

I think the biggest problem, systemically, is that governments don't see these as "fixable" situations, and instead try simply to mitigate them. Shuffle them off - or better yet, bull-doze the problem areas - arrest the louder problems, and talk about being tough of crime. The denizens of these neighborhoods don't vote, and those who do are so busy focusing on their First World Problems that they don't bother to pay attention to those living in Third World conditions down the street. They vote for themselves, not for others, and politicians react to that. Policy stems from that.

Personally, I think the best way to fix these situations is at the local levels. There is no global answer. It requires knowing the individual problems and concerns of each neighborhood, knowing the people involved, to fix them, and the local governments are the only ones in a position to do that. Of course, they're also the least funded. But, I believe that a combination of local government with local school support is what's necessary to help turn these situations around.

[Jacob]

But it clearly is NOT completely missing. This is incredible amounts of political will to do something about poverty in America - we spend billions and billions on it. We have programs, and funds, and this and that. We make incredible efforts. We provide free education, we provide social services, we have myriads of programs designed to help the poor. And many of those programs work to the extent that they allow some of them to break out of these places, leave, and move themselves into the "typical" middle class American society.

But all those programs seem to fail at the more fundamental task of eradicating this screwed up societies to begin with, which is the only real solution (I think). You can go to college for essentially free in the US, if you are poor. And that is great, but it just means that some few percent (and very few at that) can make the exceptional efforts necessary to take advantage of that opportunity. That is great, of course, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem, and it doesn't really even reduce poverty overall.

I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.

[CountDeMoney]

I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.

Not since, oh, 1980ish.

[Maximus]

I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.

I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.

[merithyn]

I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.

I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.

Agreed.

Again, those this most affects don't generally vote.

[crazy canuck]

I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.

I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.

That is what I was getting at.  Berkut is undoubtly correct that there is a lot of political will to spend a great deal of money.  But the question is what is that money being spent on.  It seems to me that the US model is highly conflicted in its delivery of aid to the poor.  Obamacare may be the best recent example.  Health care reform was required.  Americans pay the most money for very little return but reforming your system to resemble a single payor system favoured in rest of the West seems systematically impossible.

[Maximus]

No arguments there. Not sure what the/a solution is though.

[CountDeMoney]

It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.

Well, we're not going to have to worry about such nuisances like obtaining money for such programs for much longer, so it's not going to matter how it's spent anyway.

Tthe U.S. Senate would require cuts to SNAP totaling $4.1 billion over the next 10 years, or as much as $130 per household, each month.

The House of Representatives will consider a bill later this month that is proposing an even more severe alternative, slashing SNAP by more than $20 billion over the same period.

[derspiess]

Oh, snap.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.

[garbon]

Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.

Who needs a heart?

[derspiess]

Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.

Who needs a heart?

  Espec. when it can be broken.

[Jacob]

Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.

Don't you dare imply that derspiess is short on empathy

[derspiess]

Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.

Don't you dare imply that derspiess is short on empathy

We're broke, man.  Something's gotta give.