86% of strident conservatives think the poor "have it easy" (1 Viewer)

[Arsenal of Doom]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

The problem is that money is fungible, and TANF already has work requirements as part of the program. How much would the state have to spend to try and enforce something like this? How do you even enforce it? Follow TANF recipients around to see what they are doing all day? Post pictures in every tattoo parlor of people receiving aid so they aren't served?

Maybe instead of writing mean-spirited and logistically unfeasible laws like this, the state could think of ways to get better basic financial planning information and education to people receiving aid?

We disagree on what the "problem" is here and honestly, I don't see what's mean-spirited about telling people what they can't use their welfare on. I do agree that education is one of, if not THE, most important aspects of helping people out of poverty. Welfare's expensive if you're going to do it correctly They should be real with themselves about what it'd cost to manage a program. IMO, that's one of the primary flaws of the welfare system. They don't have balances in place to make sure people are following the program as it was designed. They rely on people to do the right thing despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. For those reasons, if a state is unwilling to do the things necessary to manage their welfare program, they probably shouldn't have one because it's just going to get abused.

Implementation is relatively simple in implementation but it'd cost a ton of money. You have automated systems (much like FSA/HSA systems) that can be used to approve transactions. It's tied to a clearly labeled card that everyone can identify. If a business chooses to accept it and the transaction gets rejected, they are SOL.

By problem I meant more the logistical (and logical) flaw of a law like this. Sure, you can cut off payment cards at certain locations and limit cash withdrawals. But if someone is getting $100 in aid and has $100 of other income, you can't stop them using the aid money at "approved" locations and the other income to do whatever they want. At the end of the day the money all goes into and out of the same budget. Blocking the cards at specific locations because we don't think it's a proper use of assistance money has near zero practical implication.

If we want our assistance programs to be more efficient, getting rid of means testing altogether is probably a better place to start than making the already over-complex system more complicated.

I don't disagree with you. This is something I work with every week. We have an area "support center" where we have classes on personal finance etc. Handling this via legislation or even via providing of money to individuals isn't the way to help. It sorta goes to TF's post above. For our other benefits we provide our citizens they aren't in the form of cash. I don't find the specific points in the article all that compelling as they really aren't apples to apples, but I get the jist. Honestly, the form in which we provide the assistance should change and change more towards hands on education of the individuals, providing them the tools to get out of their situation rather than simply throwing some cash at them and hope they figure it out on their own.

I see it as two issues - aid in the near-term and investment in future productivity for the long-term. When you are talking about assistance programs, economists generally agree that cash with little to no strings attached is the most efficient approach. As you may know I strongly favor moving to some form of negative income tax or other guaranteed income and away from the means tested morass of perverse incentives that makes up our current safety net.

 

[msommer]

I don't disagree with you. This is something I work with every week. We have an area "support center" where we have classes on personal finance etc. Handling this via legislation or even via providing of money to individuals isn't the way to help. It sorta goes to TF's post above. For our other benefits we provide our citizens they aren't in the form of cash. I don't find the specific points in the article all that compelling as they really aren't apples to apples, but I get the jist. Honestly, the form in which we provide the assistance should change and change more towards hands on education of the individuals, providing them the tools to get out of their situation rather than simply throwing some cash at them and hope they figure it out on their own.

I see it as two issues - aid in the near-term and investment in future productivity for the long-term. When you are talking about assistance programs, economists generally agree that cash with little to no strings attached is the most efficient approach. As you may know I strongly favor moving to some form of negative income tax or other guaranteed income and away from the means tested morass of perverse incentives that makes up our current safety net.

Education without jobs is not the way forward either. it needs to be a three step program 1st cash to remove immediate poverty, 2nd education to have the ability to hold down a productive job 3. assistance in obtaining such a job (does not have to be direct to either applicant or business but perhaps incentivicing the creation of such industry in the community)

 

[Cjw_55106]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

 

[3C's]

Again, the US shows that we value our poor less than any other developed nation on the planet. Just sad how we've let the rich convince so many of the common people to cast the sharp, critical eye on those making the least instead of those making the most.

Making the rounds on FB. http://i.imgur.com/8GnP6JP.jpg

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

 

[Henry Ford]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

No, poor people with 2.5 kids at home are doing nothing productive. Rich people at home with 2.5 kids are admirable mothers who are doing the most important job in America.

 

[Cjw_55106]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

No, poor people with 2.5 kids at home are doing nothing productive. Rich people at home with 2.5 kids are admirable mothers who are doing the most important job in America.

Ok, poor choice of words, but it doesnt change my stance. Raising your own kids is not worthy of the rest of society giving you a check.

 

[Henry Ford]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

No, poor people with 2.5 kids at home are doing nothing productive. Rich people at home with 2.5 kids are admirable mothers who are doing the most important job in America.

Ok, poor choice of words, but it doesnt change my stance. Raising your own kids is not worthy of the rest of society giving you a check.

1. What's the cost to society?

2. What's the benefit to society?

In my opinion, that's the only discussion worth having with respect to income benefits. What we're "worthy" of should never enter into the discussion when we're talking about assistance to families.

 

[The Commish]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

The problem is that money is fungible, and TANF already has work requirements as part of the program. How much would the state have to spend to try and enforce something like this? How do you even enforce it? Follow TANF recipients around to see what they are doing all day? Post pictures in every tattoo parlor of people receiving aid so they aren't served?

Maybe instead of writing mean-spirited and logistically unfeasible laws like this, the state could think of ways to get better basic financial planning information and education to people receiving aid?

We disagree on what the "problem" is here and honestly, I don't see what's mean-spirited about telling people what they can't use their welfare on. I do agree that education is one of, if not THE, most important aspects of helping people out of poverty. Welfare's expensive if you're going to do it correctly They should be real with themselves about what it'd cost to manage a program. IMO, that's one of the primary flaws of the welfare system. They don't have balances in place to make sure people are following the program as it was designed. They rely on people to do the right thing despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. For those reasons, if a state is unwilling to do the things necessary to manage their welfare program, they probably shouldn't have one because it's just going to get abused.

Implementation is relatively simple in implementation but it'd cost a ton of money. You have automated systems (much like FSA/HSA systems) that can be used to approve transactions. It's tied to a clearly labeled card that everyone can identify. If a business chooses to accept it and the transaction gets rejected, they are SOL.

By problem I meant more the logistical (and logical) flaw of a law like this. Sure, you can cut off payment cards at certain locations and limit cash withdrawals. But if someone is getting $100 in aid and has $100 of other income, you can't stop them using the aid money at "approved" locations and the other income to do whatever they want. At the end of the day the money all goes into and out of the same budget. Blocking the cards at specific locations because we don't think it's a proper use of assistance money has near zero practical implication.

If we want our assistance programs to be more efficient, getting rid of means testing altogether is probably a better place to start than making the already over-complex system more complicated.

I don't disagree with you. This is something I work with every week. We have an area "support center" where we have classes on personal finance etc. Handling this via legislation or even via providing of money to individuals isn't the way to help. It sorta goes to TF's post above. For our other benefits we provide our citizens they aren't in the form of cash. I don't find the specific points in the article all that compelling as they really aren't apples to apples, but I get the jist. Honestly, the form in which we provide the assistance should change and change more towards hands on education of the individuals, providing them the tools to get out of their situation rather than simply throwing some cash at them and hope they figure it out on their own.

I see it as two issues - aid in the near-term and investment in future productivity for the long-term. When you are talking about assistance programs, economists generally agree that cash with little to no strings attached is the most efficient approach. As you may know I strongly favor moving to some form of negative income tax or other guaranteed income and away from the means tested morass of perverse incentives that makes up our current safety net.

From a cash perspective, I can understand why an economist would believe something like that. Their POV and/or goals are probably different than mine. And honestly, I don't know what your goals are in defining success in our welfare system, but for me success looks like this:

1. People taking from the system are also giving back to the system.

2. While in the system, people are educated and taught the basics for survival outside of the system.

3. People don't stay in the system forever.

I don't think of welfare purely as a financial issue. I think of it as a societal issue. I suspect that's where my views and the views of economists vary greatly, but I've not really read many philosophies of economists on this subject, so I could be wrong.

 

[Cjw_55106]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

No, poor people with 2.5 kids at home are doing nothing productive. Rich people at home with 2.5 kids are admirable mothers who are doing the most important job in America.

Ok, poor choice of words, but it doesnt change my stance. Raising your own kids is not worthy of the rest of society giving you a check.

1. What's the cost to society?

2. What's the benefit to society?

In my opinion, that's the only discussion worth having with respect to income benefits. What we're "worthy" of should never enter into the discussion when we're talking about assistance to families.

One is financial and easy to show. The other isnt. Its hard to say society is benefitting when welfare is staying in families for multiple generations.

 

[Henry Ford]

[SIZE=medium]Probably a terrible idea, but I’ve always thought this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In general, people receiving benefits live within the same community. If you have 10 single parents and 25 kids, take a local building (could be a rec center for instance) and “hire” three of the parents as day care providers. They are paid by the state. Perhaps a rec worker could oversee the operation? The other seven get education classes for free or can elect to go into the work force. Either choice provided, qualifies you for the free daycare. Now instead of 10 people sitting around all day doing nothing productive, they all have duties. Is this perfect? Of course not, but I think 95% of people have no issue with helping out those that are “pulling their weight”. Plenty of people have issues with someone getting handouts simply because they choose not to apply themselves. Mental and physical handicaps are a different circumstance. [/SIZE]

People at home with 2.5 kids are doing "nothing productive?"

No, poor people with 2.5 kids at home are doing nothing productive. Rich people at home with 2.5 kids are admirable mothers who are doing the most important job in America.

Ok, poor choice of words, but it doesnt change my stance. Raising your own kids is not worthy of the rest of society giving you a check.

1. What's the cost to society?

2. What's the benefit to society?

In my opinion, that's the only discussion worth having with respect to income benefits. What we're "worthy" of should never enter into the discussion when we're talking about assistance to families.

One is financial and easy to show. The other isnt. Its hard to say society is benefitting when welfare is staying in families for multiple generations.

Is it? I don't think it is.

 

[cstu]

welfare is staying in families for multiple generations.

This is what happens when incentives don't match the behavior you want to reinforce.

Want people to have less kids, stay married, and get an education? Then don't reward single moms by giving them more money for each kids they have and then don't make it easier for them to go to school.

If I didn't know better I would think the Democrats want black people to stay poor...

 

[rockaction]

I think the mere use of the word "strident" gives me pause about the number here. I mean, was the other side "shrill" liberals?

 

[captain_amazing]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

They don't have to do it. People abusing welfare benefits like that is very rare, and it's a ridiculous double-standard that we require them to be accountable while not worrying about the behavior of other recipients of government benefits. Give this a read.

I don't believe that for one second.

Read the article and it does not reflect what is actually going on in poor communities. Maybe the commentator should visit a convenience store within a poor community, or follow the police when they bust a drug mill and find dozens of EBT cards taken on trade or watch them whine about not being able to pay their water bill and yet they have a brand new tattoo or pedicure. In my experience most poor people are poor because they have horrible priorities.......

If you're going to argue that a published article with links to studies is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in poor communities and then tell everyone what's really going on, it seems like maybe you should have some links and studies of your own for us

I study each and every day in the streets and homes where they live.

I work in the field of homeless and housing services and can totally understand and appreciate this opinion and belief. I know many who work in the field (not social workers, per se) that develop this perspective over time after having multiple interactions with clients who are low-income or homeless. They observe behaviors that one would attribute to poor decision-making and bad priorities, which are not factually false. However, what's more important than determining that a person's situation is a result of their current and past behavior is why they exhibit that behavior in the first place. Many studies have been done and are continuing to be done that link many questioning behaviors to early childhood trauma (physical or emotional).

Let's take a hypothetical situation: say you know someone in your neighborhood or a neighborhood near you and they are living in poverty. Let's also say they have a TV that's always on, 24/7. Their power gets shutoff because they can't afford to pay their utilities, which has abnormally high usage rates compared to others in the area due to the TV being always on. One might say - turn the TV off and the problem is solved. Yet, there's likely a reason they leave the TV on all time - perhaps when they were younger they would come home from school and walk into their house, and when it was very quiet, they knew it meant that their parent's were insatiably angry and that they were in for a severe beating (insert an even more graphic situation to emphasize the point). So, they associate a quite environment with trauma and now leave their TV on as a coping mechanism.

Do I believe that every person who is low-income or homeless and who exhibits poor behaviors that contribute to their being low-income or homeless has some history or background that could excuse or explain away their behavior? No. But I do believe that, more often than not, there is some history of trauma that can explain those type of behaviors and that, if treated clinically, could be managed in a much healthier way.

 

[whiskey7]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

They don't have to do it. People abusing welfare benefits like that is very rare, and it's a ridiculous double-standard that we require them to be accountable while not worrying about the behavior of other recipients of government benefits. Give this a read.

I don't believe that for one second.

Read the article and it does not reflect what is actually going on in poor communities. Maybe the commentator should visit a convenience store within a poor community, or follow the police when they bust a drug mill and find dozens of EBT cards taken on trade or watch them whine about not being able to pay their water bill and yet they have a brand new tattoo or pedicure. In my experience most poor people are poor because they have horrible priorities.......

If you're going to argue that a published article with links to studies is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in poor communities and then tell everyone what's really going on, it seems like maybe you should have some links and studies of your own for us

I study each and every day in the streets and homes where they live.

I work in the field of homeless and housing services and can totally understand and appreciate this opinion and belief. I know many who work in the field (not social workers, per se) that develop this perspective over time after having multiple interactions with clients who are low-income or homeless. They observe behaviors that one would attribute to poor decision-making and bad priorities, which are not factually false. However, what's more important than determining that a person's situation is a result of their current and past behavior is why they exhibit that behavior in the first place. Many studies have been done and are continuing to be done that link many questioning behaviors to early childhood trauma (physical or emotional).

Let's take a hypothetical situation: say you know someone in your neighborhood or a neighborhood near you and they are living in poverty. Let's also say they have a TV that's always on, 24/7. Their power gets shutoff because they can't afford to pay their utilities, which has abnormally high usage rates compared to others in the area due to the TV being always on. One might say - turn the TV off and the problem is solved. Yet, there's likely a reason they leave the TV on all time - perhaps when they were younger they would come home from school and walk into their house, and when it was very quiet, they knew it meant that their parent's were insatiably angry and that they were in for a severe beating (insert an even more graphic situation to emphasize the point). So, they associate a quite environment with trauma and now leave their TV on as a coping mechanism.

Do I believe that every person who is low-income or homeless and who exhibits poor behaviors that contribute to their being low-income or homeless has some history or background that could excuse or explain away their behavior? No. But I do believe that, more often than not, there is some history of trauma that can explain those type of behaviors and that, if treated clinically, could be managed in a much healthier way.

Would you say that trauma comes from parents (or lack thereof) in most cases or forces outside the home?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

The problem is that money is fungible, and TANF already has work requirements as part of the program. How much would the state have to spend to try and enforce something like this? How do you even enforce it? Follow TANF recipients around to see what they are doing all day? Post pictures in every tattoo parlor of people receiving aid so they aren't served?

Maybe instead of writing mean-spirited and logistically unfeasible laws like this, the state could think of ways to get better basic financial planning information and education to people receiving aid?

We disagree on what the "problem" is here and honestly, I don't see what's mean-spirited about telling people what they can't use their welfare on. I do agree that education is one of, if not THE, most important aspects of helping people out of poverty. Welfare's expensive if you're going to do it correctly They should be real with themselves about what it'd cost to manage a program. IMO, that's one of the primary flaws of the welfare system. They don't have balances in place to make sure people are following the program as it was designed. They rely on people to do the right thing despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. For those reasons, if a state is unwilling to do the things necessary to manage their welfare program, they probably shouldn't have one because it's just going to get abused.

Implementation is relatively simple in implementation but it'd cost a ton of money. You have automated systems (much like FSA/HSA systems) that can be used to approve transactions. It's tied to a clearly labeled card that everyone can identify. If a business chooses to accept it and the transaction gets rejected, they are SOL.

By problem I meant more the logistical (and logical) flaw of a law like this. Sure, you can cut off payment cards at certain locations and limit cash withdrawals. But if someone is getting $100 in aid and has $100 of other income, you can't stop them using the aid money at "approved" locations and the other income to do whatever they want. At the end of the day the money all goes into and out of the same budget. Blocking the cards at specific locations because we don't think it's a proper use of assistance money has near zero practical implication.

If we want our assistance programs to be more efficient, getting rid of means testing altogether is probably a better place to start than making the already over-complex system more complicated.

I don't disagree with you. This is something I work with every week. We have an area "support center" where we have classes on personal finance etc. Handling this via legislation or even via providing of money to individuals isn't the way to help. It sorta goes to TF's post above. For our other benefits we provide our citizens they aren't in the form of cash. I don't find the specific points in the article all that compelling as they really aren't apples to apples, but I get the jist. Honestly, the form in which we provide the assistance should change and change more towards hands on education of the individuals, providing them the tools to get out of their situation rather than simply throwing some cash at them and hope they figure it out on their own.

I see it as two issues - aid in the near-term and investment in future productivity for the long-term. When you are talking about assistance programs, economists generally agree that cash with little to no strings attached is the most efficient approach. As you may know I strongly favor moving to some form of negative income tax or other guaranteed income and away from the means tested morass of perverse incentives that makes up our current safety net.

From a cash perspective, I can understand why an economist would believe something like that. Their POV and/or goals are probably different than mine. And honestly, I don't know what your goals are in defining success in our welfare system, but for me success looks like this:

1. People taking from the system are also giving back to the system.

2. While in the system, people are educated and taught the basics for survival outside of the system.

3. People don't stay in the system forever.

I don't think of welfare purely as a financial issue. I think of it as a societal issue. I suspect that's where my views and the views of economists vary greatly, but I've not really read many philosophies of economists on this subject, so I could be wrong.

I don't draw much distinction between economic and societal value. Economics is a social science that focuses on transactions taking place inside society.

My personal view is that we should have a social safety net that 1) provides a reasonable standard of living (measured by OECD standards) for anyone unable to provide for themselves, and 2) establishes a floor that helps otherwise productive people stay above and begin to be productive again if they encounter hardship.

I also think we need to be realistic about how technology is changing the split between capital and labor, and what that means for notions of well being and success.

 

[FairWarning]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

They don't have to do it. People abusing welfare benefits like that is very rare, and it's a ridiculous double-standard that we require them to be accountable while not worrying about the behavior of other recipients of government benefits. Give this a read.

It's more common that you want to believe. In the inner-city, the corner party store is the grocery store for many. I see it all the time, people abusing the EBT cards.

 

[captain_amazing]

"Have it easy" in comparison to...??

And it's absurd that they have to write into laws that welfare can't be used on this stupid #### listed above.

They don't have to do it. People abusing welfare benefits like that is very rare, and it's a ridiculous double-standard that we require them to be accountable while not worrying about the behavior of other recipients of government benefits. Give this a read.

I don't believe that for one second.

Read the article and it does not reflect what is actually going on in poor communities. Maybe the commentator should visit a convenience store within a poor community, or follow the police when they bust a drug mill and find dozens of EBT cards taken on trade or watch them whine about not being able to pay their water bill and yet they have a brand new tattoo or pedicure. In my experience most poor people are poor because they have horrible priorities.......

If you're going to argue that a published article with links to studies is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in poor communities and then tell everyone what's really going on, it seems like maybe you should have some links and studies of your own for us

I study each and every day in the streets and homes where they live.

I work in the field of homeless and housing services and can totally understand and appreciate this opinion and belief. I know many who work in the field (not social workers, per se) that develop this perspective over time after having multiple interactions with clients who are low-income or homeless. They observe behaviors that one would attribute to poor decision-making and bad priorities, which are not factually false. However, what's more important than determining that a person's situation is a result of their current and past behavior is why they exhibit that behavior in the first place. Many studies have been done and are continuing to be done that link many questioning behaviors to early childhood trauma (physical or emotional). Let's take a hypothetical situation: say you know someone in your neighborhood or a neighborhood near you and they are living in poverty. Let's also say they have a TV that's always on, 24/7. Their power gets shutoff because they can't afford to pay their utilities, which has abnormally high usage rates compared to others in the area due to the TV being always on. One might say - turn the TV off and the problem is solved. Yet, there's likely a reason they leave the TV on all time - perhaps when they were younger they would come home from school and walk into their house, and when it was very quiet, they knew it meant that their parent's were insatiably angry and that they were in for a severe beating (insert an even more graphic situation to emphasize the point). So, they associate a quite environment with trauma and now leave their TV on as a coping mechanism.

Do I believe that every person who is low-income or homeless and who exhibits poor behaviors that contribute to their being low-income or homeless has some history or background that could excuse or explain away their behavior? No. But I do believe that, more often than not, there is some history of trauma that can explain those type of behaviors and that, if treated clinically, could be managed in a much healthier way.

Would you say that trauma comes from parents (or lack thereof) in most cases or forces outside the home?

I honestly do not know, but this is a great question. I'm not sure if there has been study on this, but it would be a great topic of research.

 

[Mario Kart]

They say here ninety-two percent of the honeys at UCLA are sexually active. Ninety-two percent of the women in Los Angeles at UCLA walking around going, "Class... or sex? What shall I do?" Ninety-two percent, yo! Hey, you know what that means?