Kenya in Crisis

[Aliantha]

Well if you let yourself start thinking you could change the world, who knows what could happen.

[Ibby]

Just cause it can't happen is NO reason not to try.

[Aliantha]

Or even, just because you think it can't happen is no reason it can't.

[classicman]

ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!

[Aliantha]

The point is, if you're happy to say things like, 'it can never happen' that's as good as saying, 'there's nothing I can do, so why bother trying'. There's nothing wrong with being positive in your outlook on problems which should/could be manageable.

[classicman]

No at all, I never said not to try, in fact, I've clearly stated that we should try to do more. I took offense to your comment

Originally Posted by Ali

"The fact that you/we live in a first world country and yet still have people living in poverty is inexcusable~snip~"

There will never be ZERO - its a fact - Please don't confuse that with working toward reducing the number as much as possible.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!

Now who would do that...


But getting rid of poverty is quite easy. You see it is a term that doesn't have a set meaning. Which means that if I set the poverty rate down to -$100,000, we have no one in poverty!!!


But realistically, getting rid of poverty with this many people on the planet and our level of technology is impossible. If we want to get rid of poverty we would have to either kill off billions of people (hint: this will backfire don't try (see Hitler)) or somehow become so efficient with our technology that we can feed, clothe, and house everyone. The backdrop to the second part is that by the time we do get to that point, the population will rise again and then we will have a new number to catch unless there is some form of birth regulation.

But getting rid of poverty in a first world nation is technically possible but not realistic since there are people who actually prefer to live on the streets, usually mentally ill, and the fact that we live in a heavily stratified society so there will always be the lower class. Also, I am kind of going out on a limb here so correct me if I'm wrong, but in a regulated economy, there will usually always be some unemployment so that will not be something we can get rid of.

Getting to my original point, even though we will not get rid of poverty in the United States, we can make realistic improvements to lower the number that are currently in that state or at least improve the social mobility.

Originally Posted by classicman

America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.

Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot. Did he not go to school or are the schools so deficiant of any information - other than American propaganda?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

..... getting rid of poverty is quite easy.

But I think what Classicman needs is an explanation that will bring him out of the darkness. He seems to think that the most poverty-stricken American has a better life than those impoverst people in other countries. Classicman has never heard of socialism (it seems) nor would he understand what it means to have free medical care and a sensible un-employment system that doesn't leave any of its' citizens in a state of poverty.

Good luck to you if you take on the assignment.

[DanaC]

Classicman if I am not mistaken, much of your social security is based on families with children? If you are a young man who can't find work in an area of high unemployment, what help is available to you?

Of the help that's available, how much of it is provided through a voucher system and how much through actual currency?

In the UK, some asylum seekers on, a particular programme, awaiting a decision on their case, are provided with vouchers in order to get what they need. It's never enough, it means they are unable to go to anywhere that isn't within walking distance (often with families having been split up into different areas and twns, but thats a whole other debate:P) and they have the social stigma of buying things in shops with vouchers. Might as well stick a big sign over their head.

If you're unemployed you get a fortnightly payment into your bank, or as a cheque for the post office to cash. It isn't enough, not by a long shot, but with careful money management it is enough to feed and provide basics, alongside a few sparse luxuries like cigarettes and maybe a couple of pints at a weekend. After a certain amount of time (used to be a year, I think its six months now) you start to come under more pressure to take up some kind of work or training. Throughout your claim you report in every fortnight to show what you've been doing to try and find work. Help is available to get into training schemes and 'jobsearch' programmes are mandatory after 6 months. If you don't attend the programmes, you get a penalty, of maybe two or three weeks at half your benefit. (emergency rate).

We have poverty in the UK. Some half a million children live below the official poverty line. I really don't think the poor here, are as badly off as they are in many other places (I suspect including America). On the other hand I know there are countries where the poor are a damn sight better off than here.

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor

Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot.

Sorry, Classicman. I apologise. I should never have jumped to such a hasty conclusion.

[aimeecc]

Are the poor better off or are the poor hidden?
Even in areas of high unemployment, you can gaurentee McDonald's is highering. Although minimum wage isn't enough to 'make it on your own' (nor is it intended to), there's always a way to make money. My brother supported his family working at Taco Bell taking every single shift offered to him and working his way up to management when he and his wife were first married and they had their 1st son, all on a GED. They lived in a cramped one bedroom apartment on the bad side of town, but guess what, they made it. They didn't starve, they had a roof over their head and clothes on their back. Today they have 2 pre-teens, my brother has a decent paying job in construction, and his wife is able to home school their kids (not because they're right wing, but because the older boy was asked not to return to school... a fight after the teacher called him stupid in front of the class for being a slow reader).
My sister was a single mom and used welfare and student aid so she could get training in radiology. Although not rich today by any means, she has a job that allows her and her daughter to live in a modest 2 bedroom home, and to have some of the 'necessities' for a teenager (x-box, ipod, cell phone).
Seeing the error in the ways of my siblings, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. Not only did the pay allow me to get a BA degree, but I also was able to get a MS. I work in policy today. My point - if you want to support your family in the USA, you'll find a way. The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection. And the mentally ill, although sad, cannot be forced into hospitals because then were taking away their freedom.
Poverty will never be eliminated. But the governments in the UK and USA and other western states all TRY. By varying degrees, and differing programs, but the fact is every developed nation has programs to address the poor and homeless. What works in one nation will not always work in another. You cannot compare two nations just because they are both "developed". Japan has a lower homeless rate because it would bring shame on a family for one of their family members to be homeless. They take care of family. The same is true in most developed nations that have a homogeneous population. In a melting pot like the USA, where family ties are much weaker and there is no societal pressure to 'take care' of family, and families are often quite physically distant, you do not have the family support, of lets say, Japan or Norway or Sweden. Its easier for a government to take care of the poor when the families pick up most of the burden.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection.

Care to back this up with a cite? I don't believe most homeless people make that kind of money. That's more than double what a person earning the federal minimum wage ($5.85) would make in an 8 hour day of working.

[aimeecc]

How many cars go threw a busy intersection in a matter of hours? THOUSANDS. Let's say the light is red every 5 minutes. At each red light he gets $2 from panhandling. That's $24 an hour. Every time I get stuck at a red light with a homeless man panhandling, someone gives a buck or two or ten. I've seen a man get money from 5 cars IN A ROW. Whether it was $1 per car or $10, I don't know. But in less than 5 minutes he had at least 5 dollars. That exponentially increases around the holidays as people feel more inclined to donate.
An article was written in Austin when I was there as a student in the 90s. The University of Texas newspaper (which is quite liberal... UT and Austin are far left) followed a former student who dropped out and made a living off panhandling. By day he was a homeless bum in front of a bookstore. At night he lived in a nice apartment. Since that expose, the number of panhandlers in Austin has skyrocketed.

[aimeecc]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._beggar21.html
From Seattle:
"There's this woman panhandler we've seen who has a nice Suburban with two big kennels in the back," said Dalana Slaughter, safety supervisor to the ambassadors who patrol Seattle for the Give Smart campaign. "To me, that's not homeless."

Slaughter also knows another beggar who fakes injury. "I've seen her sit in the wheelchair, I've seen her get out of the wheelchair," Slaughter said. "Her husband sits down and then he panhandles."

Dreisinger said she knows of a beggar who makes $300 a day. She also heard one panhandler boast that begging got him $26,000 a year -- tax-free."