I have been teaching in innercity schools for 12 years. my first school was smack dab in the middle of the first housing project in the US...i had many assumptions about poor people and inner city life, many of those have changed drastically. I can remember times where i was so frustrated with a child and i would become very upset and berate them..when the parents wouldnt answer or return phone calls i would have the student removed until they came back with a parent.....well after meeting the parent i found myself apologizing to the student and wanting to just give them a hug. After that i changed how i treated and handled problem students and I could tell stories all day about students who have been to over 20 schools by the sixth grade....whose mother moves every three months cause thats about how long it takes to get evicted....who are abused and underfed etc.....its not always the childs fault some kids dont know better.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: What I propose is not resenting the poor and not claiming they are poor because they want to be poor.....

The original claim is that the poor want to be poor, but that's not necessarily true. They theoretically can move from one class to another, but that's not realistic for many....

I don't resent the poor. I do resent the poor who resent the successful for working hard and being successful, and act as though the hard work of the successful has somehow resulted in their [the impoverished's] poverty.

I think of people like Ben Carson, Condie Rice, Bill Clinton, Oprah . . . these are people who had limited opportunities but rose to the highest positions of power. My concern (as someone who is scratching and clawing up from a solidly blue-collar background) is that any "mandatory benevolence" from the rich is going to inhibit intergenerational mobility in the future.

I can't imagine 80% of poor are becoming unpoor in their lifetime. And I also cannot imagine 80% of kids who grow up poor are escaping that too.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what those stats are saying....

Bill Clinton and Oprah obviously have a high enough IQ to escape poverty. Many don't so they don't make it. Then they live off welfare like their parents did and everyone resents that fact. I'm not sure but seems like IQ is something that plays a big factor in what a person ends up doing with their life and whether or not they can move out of poverty.

"I can't imagine 80% of poor are becoming unpoor in their lifetime. And I also cannot imagine 80% of kids who grow up poor are escaping that too."

It depends on what the barriers are, when many Americans think of the "poor" they automatically assume inner city minority, notwithstanding there are millions of "poor" people in more rural/agricultural areas. One of the biggest issues for the former group is the awful inner city public school systems that are prevalent, whereas even in some of the "poorer" rural systems the school systems aren't THAT bad and in fact can be a rallying center for the community. I wouldn't go far to say a majority of my classmates but pretty close to a majority were on free or reduced lunch and breakfast plans, and some of my friends definitely did not have a lot of advantages, but most of them have turned out pretty well. The military helps a lot since so many of my classmates joined the army or national guard, which at least provides some stability and training.

ManO'War wrote: I find nothing wrong with ditch digging (if that's really a job anymore), or garbage man, or fast food worker....just WORK, have a job...get up in the morning with a purpose.

I wish the government would realize that not everyone is cut of for college, then instead they could have more trade schools, instead of wasting time and money sending kids off to "school" who shouldn't be there in the first place.

Realisitically, I'd say maybe 25% of the people in college should be there, the rest are just filling time. But since college became a big business, this will never change.
It is sort of like the governement wanting everyone to own a house, but some people can't even take care of themselves, let alone a house.

I think this is a very good post. Especially the part I highlighted.

I really believe that instead of sending children through the same curiculum,they should test kids, see what their strengths are and give them the option to go to a trade school. Not everyone is going to work the same job, so they shouldn't teach kids the same things.

One could argue that when kids graduate high school they have the choice to go off to different schools, but often by then they have given up on school. I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO

dwccrew wrote: I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO

Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.

Footwedge wrote:

dwccrew wrote: I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO

Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.

What? I think you confused skilled trade jobs for non-skilled jobs. Pipefitters, Ironworkers, Masons, even mechanics, etc. are jobs that you must learn as a skill and normally go through an apprenticeship. These are jobs that are not effected by globalization, you can't outsource these jobs like you can assembly line work. Globalization has effected the NON-skilled trade jobs such as assembly line work.

dwccrew wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

dwccrew wrote: I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO

Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.

What? I think you confused skilled trade jobs for non-skilled jobs. Pipefitters, Ironworkers, Masons, even mechanics, etc. are jobs that you must learn as a skill and normally go through an apprenticeship. These are jobs that are not effected by globalization, you can't outsource these jobs like you can assembly line work. Globalization has effected the NON-skilled trade jobs such as assembly line work.

No I'm not confusing anything. Skilled jobs are very much being reduced through globalization. Manufacturing plants were loaded with skilled laborers. Not saying all of them are leaving, but a high percentage of them are.

Steel mills, rubber plants, aluminum plants....all loaded with pipefitters, ironworkers, boilermakers, millwrights and masons. When the smokiestacks shut down, so did a high number of skilled jobs.

Good paying blue collar jobs have dwindled down the shitter. And now the white collared jobs are following close behind.

If we want less poor people, then we need to re-examine why the private sector has "left the building". Without the growth of the private sector here in America, the standard of living has to go down. Simple economics, really.

I am poor because I want to be poor. In fact, I enjoy going to the Super Market and acting like I'm putting a mortgage down on a house. SMH.

"To admit that inputs affect outputs, whether in education, in the economy or in other areas, would be to undermine the vision and agenda of the left, and deprive those who believe in that vision of a moral melodrama, starring themselves as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. Redistribution of material resources has a very poor track record when it comes to actually helping those who are lagging, whether in education, in the economy or elsewhere. What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired. But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. "

economist Thomas Sowell

chs71 wrote: "... What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired. But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. "

economist Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is undoubtedly one of the greatest conservative minds we have today. Unfortunately people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck lead the cause instead of someone like him.

But if we look at what he said...don't conservatives and liberals agree with Sowell's essential point???

Poor people are not poor because they desire, crave, or want to be poor...they do not want to live uncomfortably or without financial security or without peace of mind...

I think a rational conservative or liberal would both agree that humans, so long as they lack the attitudes, behaviors and priorities to escape poverty...a person will not escape poverty. Throwing money at someone who doesn't have the requisite attitude, behavior and priority to use it in an efficient manner to lay the foundation toward financial independence will not achieve the desired outcome of a society with more financially secure and self-reliant adults.

The fact of the matter is...there are a lot of children who are thrust into the world by no choice of their own, who's gray matter in their skulls somehow has a consciousness attached to it that allows there to be a person who has feelings and sentience and can experience pleasure and pain....who arrive into situations through no economic choice of their own wherein....because they were created by insufficiently self-reliant adults who are now parents, in areas with insufficient property tax revenue to support school districts that will attract good teachers, etc. etc. etc. They are unlikely; really, if we don't focus on the outliers and call a spade a spade, to have desirable amounts of attitude, desire and behavior nor the tools to implement these things in a positive way to achieve meaningful self-reliance.

We all agree that at its most basic level It comes down to intrinsic motivation...and creating intrinsic motivation and tools through which that intrinsic motivation can work are the key. We just disagree on how this might happen.

The Conservative says: If you give him a tool, he'll just expect more tools in the future...if you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk...you're not going to encourage him to be self-reliant, you're encouraging dependence on mommy government's teet.

The liberal says: If you let him fend for himself he'll have the inital boost he needs...we can indeed teach a guy to fish and not make him think we're going to teach him everything in the future...If we lift the guy up off the ground he will go on walking on his own two feet.

As Sowell points out, liberals have had a poor track record with the tools they've tried to create...but nonetheless, I think that the goal of contemporary liberalism is ultimately that; to help people achieve the attitudes and behavior that leads to successful self-reliance and independence...

To me Conservatives want the same thing for people....it's just that the modern conservative looks at this as an individual problem and it ought to be solved on an individual basis with society bearing no moral obligation to help make it happen...the harms to individual liberty are too great... whereas the modern liberal sees this as a moral obligation and that the individual liberty retained is largely meaningless for many when so many, based purely on our experience of the world, will undoubtedly lack the requisite attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to use that freedom effectively.

BoatShoes wrote: Thomas Sowell is undoubtedly one of the greatest conservative minds we have today. Unfortunately people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck lead the cause instead of someone like him.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman... Some of the greatest conservative/libertarian minds in modern times IMO. Your assertion that Limbaugh and Beck are leading the cause is based on what facts? Do you have any statistics to support your assertion?

BoatShoes wrote: But if we look at what he said...don't conservatives and liberals agree with Sowell's essential point???

Poor people are not poor because they desire, crave, or want to be poor...they do not want to live uncomfortably or without financial security or without peace of mind...

I agree anyone with sanity would desire financial security.

BoatShoes wrote: I think a rational conservative or liberal would both agree that humans, so long as they lack the attitudes, behaviors and priorities to escape poverty...a person will not escape poverty. Throwing money at someone who doesn't have the requisite attitude, behavior and priority to use it in an efficient manner to lay the foundation toward financial independence will not achieve the desired outcome of a society with more financially secure and self-reliant adults.

You are 100% correct here. Throwing money at a problem is not going to solve anything.

BoatShoes wrote: The fact of the matter is...there are a lot of children who are thrust into the world by no choice of their own, who's gray matter in their skulls somehow has a consciousness attached to it that allows there to be a person who has feelings and sentience and can experience pleasure and pain....who arrive into situations through no economic choice of their own wherein....because they were created by insufficiently self-reliant adults who are now parents, in areas with insufficient property tax revenue to support school districts that will attract good teachers, etc. etc. etc. They are unlikely; really, if we don't focus on the outliers and call a spade a spade, to have desirable amounts of attitude, desire and behavior nor the tools to implement these things in a positive way to achieve meaningful self-reliance.

We all agree that at its most basic level It comes down to intrinsic motivation...and creating intrinsic motivation and tools through which that intrinsic motivation can work are the key. We just disagree on how this might happen.

The Conservative says: If you give him a tool, he'll just expect more tools in the future...if you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk...you're not going to encourage him to be self-reliant, you're encouraging dependence on mommy government's teet.

The liberal says: If you let him fend for himself he'll have the inital boost he needs...we can indeed teach a guy to fish and not make him think we're going to teach him everything in the future...If we lift the guy up off the ground he will go on walking on his own two feet.

As Sowell points out, liberals have had a poor track record with the tools they've tried to create...but nonetheless, I think that the goal of contemporary liberalism is ultimately that; to help people achieve the attitudes and behavior that leads to successful self-reliance and independence...

To me Conservatives want the same thing for people....it's just that the modern conservative looks at this as an individual problem and it ought to be solved on an individual basis with society bearing no moral obligation to help make it happen...the harms to individual liberty are too great... whereas the modern liberal sees this as a moral obligation and that the individual liberty retained is largely meaningless for many when so many, based purely on our experience of the world, will undoubtedly lack the requisite attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to use that freedom effectively.

I do not think society bears no moral obligation to help those in need. My and other conservative's disagreement is on what level of governance should be instituted to assure these needs are met. I believe that solutions to these problems are best achieved closest to the problem.

There is no way a bureaucrat in Washington can discern the diverse needs of this vast nation. Whether it is poverty in the inner city, appalachia, rural south, or the farthest eskimo in Alaska. Think about it who is more able to discern the true miscreants, officials governed by Washington or those governed by the locality.

The main difference between liberal and conservatives on this issue is liberals don't trust small government or individuals to solve their own problems. Their all knowing solutions should be enforced on the whole nation via the Federal goverment. They invest their trust in big government.

majorspark wrote:
Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman... Some of the greatest conservative/libertarian minds in modern times IMO. Your assertion that Limbaugh and Beck are leading the cause is based on what facts? Do you have any statistics to support your assertion?

The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

I think he has a colume in the Townhall and Jewish World Review
Thomas Sowell is a great American but very few know his work and views.
Marxist to Capitalist ..... I enjoy reading online and hearing some of his interviews on line.

I could never understand why he has not gotten more camera and ink time or interviews.even on GB or RL programs. Not to sure ABC. NBC or CBS would what to hear his answers to some question about this Obama Administration and the Dismantling of America

Would be a much better place if the likes of Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, Hannity, etc., retired to vans down by the river and men like Sowell stepped into their place.

BoatShoes wrote: The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

You are making generalizations about what drives and motivates a conservative. Its just your observation based on what you see in the media. Just because something is debated in the media does not make it fact. Your generalization is no different than the one made about liberals on the 7 things about libs thread.

I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

Maybe. I think you may be suprised as to what riles up a conservative. I think to you under estimate the influence of media on the internet. You may also be suprised at the number of conservatives that are aware of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. If you want to use Rush's show as an example, he has on many occasions metioned the works of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. Williams if one of my favorite subs for Rush.

I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

True. But I have been suprised by how many "average" people use the internet to seek out information and political commentary. They are not all mind numbed robots having their information spoon fed by Limbaugh, Beck, or the mainstream media.

majorspark wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

You are making generalizations about what drives and motivates a conservative. Its just your observation based on what you see in the media. Just because something is debated in the media does not make it fact. Your generalization is no different than the one made about liberals on the 7 things about libs thread.

I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

Maybe. I think you may be suprised as to what riles up a conservative. I think to you under estimate the influence of media on the internet. You may also be suprised at the number of conservatives that are aware of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. If you want to use Rush's show as an example, he has on many occasions metioned the works of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. Williams if one of my favorite subs for Rush.

I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

True. But I have been suprised by how many "average" people use the internet to seek out information and political commentary. They are not all mind numbed robots having their information spoon fed by Limbaugh, Beck, or the mainstream media.

I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of most people with internet access.

Most people who are aligned to the right or attend tea party rallies probably have no idea who Sowell is. I have no statistics based on that but I guarantee you that it's true.

Just like most people who are crazy leftists probably listen to Olberman way more than any real liberal thinker.

Just to play devils advocate here. Many, not all Conservatives are religous. Most are Christians or claim to be. In all reality if you truly believe in the scripture, isn't it wrong to call out the poor and have so much disdain for them.

I am not talking about the government taking care of the poor, just the overall attitude that some of you seem to have towards those less fortunate amazes me.

I Wear Pants wrote: I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of most people with internet access.

Most people who are aligned to the right or attend tea party rallies probably have no idea who Sowell is. I have no statistics based on that but I guarantee you that it's true.

Just like most people who are crazy leftists probably listen to Olberman way more than any real liberal thinker.

You and boatshoes may very well be correct. Maybe I am more of an optimist. Without any reliable study or statistics, we only have our own personal experience and what is portrayed to us in the media.

Take the town hall or tea party rallies. Unless you have been a part of them and were able to mingle and discuss amongst the attendees their motives, you only have what is portrayed to you in the media. In either of these events I could find several intellegent informed attendees as well as several numb skulls. Depending on which set of attendees I place in my news clip, I can create two separate impressions of those attending.

pmoney25 wrote: Just to play devils advocate here. Many, not all Conservatives are religous. Most are Christians or claim to be. In all reality if you truly believe in the scripture, isn't it wrong to call out the poor and have so much disdain for them.

I am not talking about the government taking care of the poor, just the overall attitude that some of you seem to have towards those less fortunate amazes me.

I don't think people are calling out the poor for being in need. Only the lazy and those that may use assistance to facilitate a drug habbit or engage in risky sexual behavior. If you read the scriptures they make note of the slothful. The scriptures say if one does not provide for his own house he is worse than an infidel. Obviously this is not in reference to those with the inability based on a physical or temporary economic need, but those by choice of their own actions be it laziness or risky behavior endager the needs of their own family.

In fact in the old testement at harvest time the land owners were instructed to leave a portion of the field unharvested for the poor to glean from. They did not harvest and give it to those in need without any effort from the poor. Rather it was left for them to harvest for themselves.

As noted in previous posts it takes discernment to separate those in true need from those that are lazy, seeking to take advantage, or those with nefarious intentions. There is no way a far away government in Washington can make these distinctions. They must be made closest to the problem with local governance private and public. Supplimental funds from the state governments (not the feds) could be helpful as long as local governance is maintained. But their is a danger in this, that people always spend other peoples money differently that their own. The farther people are from the spenders of their money the greater this danger is.

queencitybuckeye wrote:
Actually, without the massive amount of student loans given out like candy, we wouldn't have hyper-inflation in that marketplace, and school would be more affordable to the many, not less.

How exactly would college be more affordable with less access to loans?

I understand the inflation part of the equation....but I would never classify it as hyperinflation.