I can't remember the last time we had a topic going in this section so I thought I would try something new.


Question:

Name ONE concrete thing we can do as INDIVIDUALS (and not through the State) to reduce poverty in America and why would it work?

Name ONE concrete thing we can do as INDIVIDUALS (and not through the State) to reduce poverty in America and why would it work?
Raise our children to be responsible, do not accept or condone low achievement.

Poverty is primarily related to location, individual skills and job availability of employment to utilize the skills. If a person is willing to learn a skill you possess then teach them the skill and if you can financially help to allow relocation then do so. Or volunteer to support a faith-based group that does these functions.

Much of poverty is created by illegal immigration taking away employment possibilities for early childhood employment and development of working habits. Illegal also take away possibility of supplemental income for elders wishing to work part time during retirement. As an individual one could demand the government constrain immigration or lead an effort of other citizens to do the same.

Volunteer to help with habitat for humanity.

Well that is more then one Ol Sarge but I get your point.

However, what I was getting at here was addressing those that are impoverished today.

For example. In my town, financial mis-management (By both Democrats and Republicans) have lead to the need to eliminate the funding of trash collection. However, my town is mostly a lower middle income town and is an old town, the average resident is probably 50 years of age and there is an abundance of retirees on fixed incomes here. Yet, the town saw no need to limit their inclusion in this 200.00 / year fees.

So, in my case, One concrete thing that can be done is to goto the town meetings and hammer away, fighting for the elimination of waste to enable the return to city funding of trash collection or at least the exemption of the fees for seniors. Failing to do that we can keep up the fight by "Voting the Bums Out" and replacing them which whoever is running against them, regardless of who it is. Even if the opponent is an idiot, the "we'll REALLY vote you out message" being heard loud and clear would be worth a few years with people you don't care for at the helm.

I guess it is already private trash pickup now but had the community been more involved with government some of these alternative ideas may have helped.

Trash collection is undoubtedly too expensive and the trash collection problem should be intelligently resolved. Here an introduction of automated trucks has reduced employees to only the driver using a robot system verses a driver and two trash handlers. Labor savings offsets the initial cost of specialty trash containers and automated trucks. The community has to be a little more active to properly place the container on the curb.

Trash pickup cost could be reduced by citizen cooperation and incentives. The use of trash compacters significantly reduces trash buildup and used with citizen cooperation of freezing food leftovers trash collection could be cut in half.

Here there is no recycling of plastic or glass but if such a system exist citizens could place plastic and glass in consolidated neighborhood bulk containers. I am an active recycler and compost all food leftovers and “all” paper. Since I’ve been composting my trash container is half full at pickup day in comparison to not composting and now I don’t have trouble with stray dogs or cats in the container.

Even without composting if citizens flatten all paper containers, freeze leftovers until garbage days and collapse plastic containers pickup day cycles could be reduced enough to hold down costs. Likewise, even if recycle centers for plastic, paper and glass aren’t available the city could provide neighborhood central bulk containers for glass, plastic and paper to reduce pickup days to hold down costs. Simply segregate the recycle materials in the dump (plastic and glass) for the possibility of later economical recycling program while reducing the labor-intensive home collection.

NOTHING!

There is nothing I can do to decrease poverty, not even a bit. The reason for that is simply that I'm not poor! Its not that I'm unconcerned, or hard hearted, or don't care, its that I'm realistic. I can give someone a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars, they're still poor because they have not means to use that to create income.

The only people who can eliminate poverty is POOR people, and what they have to do is to decide to stop being poor, they have to figure out what it takes to stop being poor and do that thing.

The government has spent BILLIONS and yet the are more poor now than before they wasted the money. In fact, the government actions not only increased poverty, but guaranteed the perpetuation of poverty.

The PRINCIPAL predictor of poverty and continuing poverty is children being raised in fatherless homes.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
--U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
--Center for Disease Control
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
--Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
--National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
--U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept., 1988
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
--Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992

Translated, this means that children from a fatherless home are:


5 times more likely to commit suicide

32 times more likely to run away

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out of school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution

20 times more likely to end up in prison


There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers
--Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991


In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents", Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).

"Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality."
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

"Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households."
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data", Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).

"...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse", Adolescence 30 (1995)

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justce and Delinquency Prevention.

Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan", Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

"A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males."
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

" Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide."
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology.", Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

"Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity."
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, "Fatherless Children", New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

"In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes."
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce", Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

"Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems."
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects " of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development", Child Development 65 (1994).

"Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school."
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children.", Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

"Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help."
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood", Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

"Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families."
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

"Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger."
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, "Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors", Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944)

"Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression."
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers", Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).

"Father hunger " often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, "Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome", Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.

"Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem."
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interiew Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988

A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, "In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them", The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.

In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children", Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

"Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction " in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

"Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes."
Source: J.B. Elshtain, "Family Matters... ", Christian Century, Jully 1993.


Fathers teach children how to eliminate poverty, by instilling the value of work and education, boundaries, and the ethics to pull it all together.

Feminist doctrine began the process by creating a sense that fathers were unnecessary. The government made the problem worse by paying women to have out of wedlock children.

WIC became a career choice, (and Oprah congratulated the choice). Simply have a baby, DON'T live with the father, and we'll pay you, nice work if you could get it.

SO now, a generation later we have a number of young fertile women, who have followed in their mother's career, (and incidently because of growing up in a fatherless home, are much more likely to get pregnant).

Now a generation later, we have young men in trouble with the law, no marketable skills, no work ethic. Making babies with the young women who need these children to get on Welfare.

The problem is one generation worse, because as damaged as THIS generation is, the next will be more damaged, and those communities have FOREVER lost the language of success. The present generation didnt learn the language of success from their fathers (who knew it, just didn't have the chance to exercise it before the welfare system tossed them out of their children's lives). That language of success is FOREVER lost to those communities.

Even if we had a mechanism by which we could re-integrate the new fathers of today into their children's lives, the new fathers of today didn't learn what a father needs to teach because their fathers didn't have the opportunity to teach it to them.

It will take a DRASTIC change in government, AND three generations to fix the problem. Ain't gonna happen.

I think there is a difference between just being poor compared to actually living in poverty. I have a few poor relatives, and no matter what you do in the way of advice, or even giving them money, they will always be poor. Their education is incomplete, and they don't care. They know they do not have the job skills to better their situation, and they don't care. They seem to accept a minimalistic life style. But they are not suffering, which is where true poverty starts.
I don't believe that we have much in the way of true poverty in this country. The poor in many other countries would feel rich living like our poor. They don't have clean water, electricity, adequate food, access to education, etc.
For the very few here that may be deemed living in poverty, the thing to do is move them out of the environment they are in, put them in school, educate them to at least the point where they are employable. That is putting them on the path, they have to go down that path from that point on their own.
What did I do to keep myself from being poor?
I grew up poor, and understood why. My father didn't get a good job until after he finished an apprenticeship to become a machinist. He was 38 when he started the program, and already had a wife and 5 children to support on a security guards pay. The job change was good for him, but why did he wait til he was almost 40? Knowing how he messed up encouraged me to get some education right out of high school. Worked for me, even tho I had to give the Navy a lot of years in return for the training. Most of us have had the opportunities presented to us, and most of the time some sacrifice was required. That is life, you rarely get something for nothing.

Stop helping people in poverty.

Poverty in America is not like poverty in the third world. Anybody can get a job doing something, be it as a security guard, or painting houses, or as a gardener. The incentives aren't very strong in many instances, but I believe that anybody can earn enough money to at least afford the basic necessities. If you have an old trailer, a sunday vacation, and beer and food to enjoy with friends, you aren't living in poverty. You aren't homeless, and you can afford a decent lifestyle.

The problem with poverty in America is that charity organizations make it possible to live without working.

I used to be quite poor, and my schedule revolved around when certain soup kitchens would start to serve food, where the government was handing out free cheese, standing in line trying to apply for food stamps, and maybe hitting the jackpot by finally being considered unemployable by the state, thus getting Social Security Insurance. Of course, women have it much easier. All they have to do is get pregnant and the state would give them a place to live, pay for the rent, give them money and food stamps twice a month, and provide medical care. All free without even breaking a sweat!

Personally, I couldn't live like that so I painted houses, did some carpentry, attended city college, and eventually got accepted by a university. However, a lot of people can live off of charity, as evinced by the growing homeless population.

Take the ability to live a life of relaxation due to charity out of the picture, and I guarantee you that you'll find much fewer Americans living in poverty. I probably ate better at soup kitchens than I do now that I'm married. I didn't have to wash the dishes then, either.

There is little that a single individual can do to eliminate poverty, which is not to say that there isn't anything one can do to help individual poor people. I've worked in food banks, food kitchens, and on farms where the food was given to the poor. I also contribute to a warm home fund and other charities.

I violently disagree with the way several have characterized the poor. It is true that women headed households make up a significant fraction of the poor. However, it is a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument or false cause, questionable cause, confusing coincidental relationships with causes argument to attribute their poverty to the lack of a man in the household. After all, in many cases it was the type of man in many of these households that led to their break up. Sometimes poverty itself contributed to the poor choice of mates and other poor life decisions. And then lots of other people are in poverty because of medical or mental conditions, some of these are discarded veterans from past wars. We also still have long duration pockets of poverty that are geographically defined and new pockets associated with plant closings.

I also disagree that government is powerless to alleviate poverty. We were well on the way toward the elimination of poverty when the country was side tracked into the Vietnam War. The social democracies of Europe have done a great deal to eliminate the most extreme poverty.

In any case, I don't see a reduction of poverty in the foreseeable future. Instead, with Peak Oil and an unsustainable foreign debt creating an economic crisis, I see many of us joining the ranks of the poor.

That may be true, but as multiple "single individual"s band together, they can through strength in numbers effect change that helps to eliminate poverty.




I agree that single parent households, or specifically the lack of a man in the household is not the only cause of poverty, nor is it always avoidable, as in your example of poor chooses in mates. However, single parent households are a good portion of the impoverished, for a reason. It is not mere coincidence. It is the lack of a second adult and the inclusion of a child that creates the problem. For one to succeed in life, you need to work and earn a living. To do so when you have a child requires more earnings to be successful, but it also requires some manner of child care to enable the parent(s) to work. I some two parent households like mine, this is accomplished by having one parent stay home with the child (eliminating child care costs, and a multitude of other costs associated with an outside career). In others this is accomplished with both parents working, thus bringing in more income, and paying a third party for child-care.

When you are dealing with a child as a single parent you generally have limited resources. You have to have child-care, but you only have one income coming in to pay for all of your families living expenses including child-care. Some have the benefit of having a relative to use for free child-care. Most do not. As a result, your available finances are lessoned by the cost of child-care, and you are that much more likely to be impoverished.

To me, single parent families are a major portion of the impoverished because of the reality of the cost of living and the cost of children. I don't see it as a coincidental relationship at all.



It was that same time frame that created a new surge in poverty, or more specifically a new surge in homelessness, though good intentions.

We decided that it was wrong to keep people institutionalized when they were not a danger to others. As a result a large number of people, many of whom had been living in a institution for their entire adult lives, we "freed" from the institutions. The problem was that many, had no idea how to live on their own and we as a society do not think through that issues when they were released. As a result the was a tremendous surge of homeless people in the 1970s.

This is a good example of how the best intentions can cause their own problems, especially when there is a perceived need to rush a solution. When we seek to find new ways to reduce and eliminate injustices in the world we have to examine the issue in it's entirety and try to preempt problems that the solution may cause.

In this case, if the solution had been to move these people into programs that educated them on how to take care of themselves on their own, perhaps a half-way house approach, rather then simply tossing open the doors and saying "be free" we would have prevented the surge of homelessness that followed.

Taking your time when examining potential solutions to the issue of the day, and weighing the benefits of the solution against all of the possible costs it might create will go a long way in avoiding this sort of issue in the future.

I really don't believe it is fair to make the generalization that a fatherless home will churn out an unproductive member of society. I grew up, and am still growing up, in a fatherless home without steady income, and as a direct result, am far removed from apathy. Not only is it untrue in many cases, but it also paints an incredibly bleak, sexist picture of our society.
I would also like to point out that, as human beings, we have a certain responsibility to all other citizens, despite gender, race, sexual orientation, social status or annual income. People are people, just like you and just like me and the only difference is circumstance. North American culture fancies itself to be the land of opportunity and possibility. What that really means is it is a land of opportunity and possibility, if you can buy it for yourself. Somebody who has never known what it means to be poor could not possibly have any idea how one is born at a disadvantage to the rest of the populace. America has been structured in such a way that the only people with the prospects of getting out of poverty, don't need to because they were never in. Someone from a lower income household has fewer avenues for education, job opportunities, networking and positive outside exposure.
A government is responsible for its citizens. ALL of its citizens. The idea that is not realistic in any way, shape or form. The world caters to individuals who are of high social status and generate a great amount of income, often at the expense of those living below the poverty line. This attitude only perpetuates a stereotype of lower income households as white trash without the motivation to change. Nobody believes the government should hand out life on a silver platter, but perhaps, instead of pouring billions of dollars into a pointless war based on nothing, we could create self-sufficiency programs and subsidize education.
As an individual, it's difficult to create a great movement for change (which I believe is necessary) but a large group of individuals can at least plant the seed. As for one concrete course of action by the individual without state involvement, I don't think it exists. It is the responsibility of the individual to become aware of the issue, but the elimination of poverty means changing paradigms and that needs to begin at the top.

Name ONE concrete thing we can do as INDIVIDUALS (and not through the State) to reduce poverty in America and why would it work?

Poverty is almost non-existent in America. If you have a job, your guaranteed at making at least enough money to feed and house yourself, and if you don't have a job, you can receive welfare. Thats more the the people living in true poverty abroad can say. Thus, I think the question your etching toward is more of a how can we help the lower.

In order to decrease the lower classes size, we need to make the rate at which people leave the lower class, higher then the rate at which people enter it. This means we must increase opportunity for the poor, while at the same time trying to make sure people from the upper and middle class, don't screw up their innate advantages. As Individuals, this means joining volunteer programs (which do a number of things, such as creating scholarships, monitoring young poor people..etc), and irritating your children into doing their work unmercefully!

I am the youngest of five children, three of whom have a poverty mentality. The oldest one, 53, married a shrew with bucks so that he could play at working while they live off her inheritance. The middle one, 48, lives with our widowed father, who enables his alcoholism and spotty work habits, and who doesn't ask him for room and board. The fourth one, 42, refuses to do any work other than as a restaurant cook, and insists on living in an area that depends heavily on summer tourism but shuts down in the winter, meaning he goes on unemployment for half of each year. He constantly struggles for cash, borrowing from our dad and whichever siblings will lend him money (most of us won't anymore, since it basically amounts to "giving," not lending). His wife was injured in an accident several years ago and has tried without success to get SSI disability benefits. Apparently, her doctor has never heard of physical therapy, only pharmaceuticals, because she's doped to the gills half the time. They are raising an almost-18-year-old son who shares their attitude about work: it's something other people do.

My second-oldest brother, 50, is a CPA. I'm 40 and have worked secretarial jobs since I was a teenager. I enjoy my work and make a good dollar for it, considering I have limited education.

If I can't begin to understand the mentality of my brothers, whom I grew up with, and why they seem content to live off other people or the government, there's no hope of my understanding it in strangers. When I think of the times in my early 20s when I had no phone, no car, and was working as a temp because of the recession -- sometimes I walked three miles to a job if there was no bus available -- living on peanut butter and ramen noodles -- I can't believe anybody would voluntarily stay in that kind of situation.

The one decision I made that stood me in good stead was to stay single and not have any children. I've always been able to take care of myself. I've never filed for unemployment in my life -- I always temped between jobs. Sometimes as a temp, they sent me to assignments I really didn't know how to do, and I bluffed my way through and LEARNED on the job, because I needed the money. I think a lot of people wouldn't do that -- they're too passive.

I work for a religious denomination and am a sincere Christian. I would never advocate withdrawing charity work. Christ said there will always be poor people and He was right. However, I would definitely curtail the amount of government assistance that is currently offered.

Parents must teach their children to gain as much education and as many skills as possible so they have something to offer the job market. There is a mentality that jobs exist because people need work, and nothing could be further from the truth. Jobs exist because companies need workers. People who want work must bring something to the table.

Wow you guys seem a little pessimistic.

I think one individual can help reduce poverty, mostly just on an individual level, l but still I think that counts.

I will share a personal story.

I met a woman who was a new immigrant to the US from Bangladesh.(yes she was legal) with three children and no husband..he was abusive and she left him. I met her literally on the street..she wasn't living there but that is where we met. I don't know why but I felt such an obligation to help her..she honestly needed or was in need of help more than any person I have ever met before and I knew I could make a difference in her life. I helped her find places that might hire her..I drove her around (she had no car or licence) I took her grocery shopping., watched her kids when she went job hunting, I helped her fill out job applications (she had little grasp on English) I told her what to tell people when they asked her certain questions at interviews. I gave her driving lessons..she was HORRIBLE we had a cop pull us over she was riving like a drunkard! I lent her a car to take her driving test with. I helped her find a beauty school to apply to, I helped her fill out the financial assit. paperwork. On and on.

All I did was lend some time, a lot of patience and just invested some concern in another person's life and wellbeing.
She is now a Beauty school graduate and works at a salon and loves her new American lifestyle...she has plans to come visit me this summer at the beach and she said she isn't scared to drive on the highway because she drives everywhere now.

So *tthhpppttt* to all the cynics.

Well, bucket, you are then one of the oft-ridiculed thousand points of light. Funny, it doesn't seem so bad, they way you describe it. You must be a bad, evil person, then...not leaving all this up to the government, and all.



Ok, I'm with ya in sentiment, I think....but this is a bit extreme. The issue, I hope you will agree, is not to stop helping people in need, but to do so in ways that encourage them to be self supporting, and not require permanent assistance. It may very well be that some assistance is required to get there, either in the form of personal help as bucket described, charity, or some form of governmental assistance. But to make a blanket statement to simply stop all help, quite frankly, portrays the very attitude I think many conservatives are trying hard to overcome.



Couldn't have said it better myself, LHP. What is it with all these self-labeled liberals here espousing conservative principles ?

It just occurred to me this morning that one solution for single mothers who can't afford child care expenses on a slim salary is to organize, as a group, and for every, say, five mothers, one would care for the other four's children (and her own) at home. The home-care mother could draw public assistance, and the other mothers could be relieved of child-care expenses (though they would need to provide the home-care mother with extra food money, etc.) I think this could work.

I just wanted to make some observations on a few of your comments Sven, if you don't mind



I didn't get the impression that it was a generalization. I believe that the point was that there is a high correlation between single-parent homes and poverty. Naturally, this won't be true in every case, but it is a major indicator of what to look for. You cannot cure a disease unless you can identify the primary cause.



True, true. The topic asks what we can do individually, and the solution will be different in every case. Bucket, that was exactly the kind of things we should ALL be doing. For those who are down, giving them a hand up until they can get on their feet is the most effective approach. In many cases, people do really need help. In many others, being poor is made too easy by well-meaning but short-sighted "givers", and government welfare programs are the guiltiest.



I'm going to have to disagree with you here. My family was never in abject poverty, but we were definitely lower middle class, financially. My parents were unable to pay a single dime for my education; their support consisted mostly of food now and then, and a good deal of moral support. The most significant thing they provided for me was a strong work ethic, and the understanding that if I wanted success I had to go get it. Nobody was going to hand it to me.

Here's what I did: I worked hard in high school, graduating in the top 10% of my class. I prepared for the ACT exam, which is required in my state for college entrance, and did well enough on it to be accepted to a nearby college. I worked my way through, relying exclusively on 1) my summer-work income, 2) Federal grants, and 3) Student loans as necessary. I'm now a college graduate and have a decent middle-class job, with my student loans mostly paid off.

My point is that I did not have the means to buy my way out of (quote/unquote)poverty. I had to work my way out and make smart choices. Anybody can do that, rich or poor. The idea that opportunities to climb the economic ladder are available only to those who already have money is simply unrealistic.



My personal experience from above completely contradicts this statement, and I don't believe that I'm a rare exception.

While not overly complicated, at least you have come up with a plan. Obviously, this is not the solution to all poverty, but it could be a useful component that could be built upon.

It all comes down to incentives. Right now there is too much incentive to for young girls to have babies out of wed-lock and live off of charity. A helping hand needs to come with minimum requirements that must be continually monitored and met by the recipient. We could also use some incentives to deter this from occurring in the first place.

Dispelling my favorite myth,

How can we, on an individual level, eliminate poverty?



Except that in capitalism, somebody must invariably accept and 'settle' for low achievement. After all, you don't run a multi-national corporation, do you? Loser.

I live in a hood packed with hasidic jews. If you were a bird looking for a non-yamaka'd (sp?) head to plop one on, I'd be your sole, lonely, goy target.

One thing stands out about the particular orthodox community in question, there are no poor hasidic jews among them. They take care of their own. I'd suspect they have their alcoholics, their general screw-ups, as well as their doctors and winners in life; but from what I can see they live, tight, in the same neighborhood like ants, and don't hesitate to take each other in. Even their apartments are all roughly similar in form, modest and austere. Its voluntary, spiritual, god-fearing communism.

'Get-yours' america could take a lesson from this, and in that regard my advice is reach out to your family and neighbors. If you see someone's stuff on the street, they've been evicted, take some of it back to your place for them and keep it safe 'till they get a new pad. Let out of district kids secretly zoned for a worse school than the one they're actually attending be. Help your nephews and nieces pay for college by hiring them for a summer. Give some, take some. Thats about as much of an answer as I can provide to that immense question. As to the notion that the best way to get rid of poverty is for every individual to work hard at getting rich, I heartily reject that claim on the basis of common sense and history.

I can name quite a few.

1. Don't get pregnant before you are married.
2. Don't get pregnant when you are married if you can't provide for the child.
3. Pay attention in school and receive your diploma. Go to college if possible.
4. Learn to speak English.
5. Don't take drugs or abuse alcohol.
6. Take accountability for your own behavior and actions.
7. Don't break the law or engage in criminal activities.
8. Learn how our economic system works. At least the basics.
9. Don't spend beyond your means.
10. Save and invest some of what you make.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to better his own financial situation, whether it be through pursuing an education or an apprenticeship.

However, there are quite a few things that the government can do to help create the opportunities that the poor need. For starters, government needs to stop wasteful spending and drastically cut taxes for the poor people. Someone gave a good example about how a city government cut back on garbage collection but still continued collecting taxes from its citizens.

Government waste crowds out useful investments and sets a bad example for the citizens. If a homeless person has to pay social security taxes to someone better off than himself, why would he want to work for peanuts? The public needs to reform the educational system to make it more accessible to the poor.

I maintain that the government has made poverty even worse. How? By enabling those who get pregnant before marriage, even as minors. By paying people not to work and by not attaching any strings to this support to education. By refusing to link drug abuse to welfare payments. By treating criminals like they are victims and by returning them to the streets after token penalties (if at all).

Government has sent the message to the poor that they are not responsible for their own actions and that they are victims of those more prosperous.

Their poverty is largely the result of their behavior, not the other way around.

I'm definately opposed to handouts as well. But we have to make the distinction between the lazy bums and the folks who got laid off from good jobs. I think that the whole welfare generation idea has been overblown. Most of the federal spending goes towards big ticket items like Medicare and the Military. On top of that, the Republicans reformed welfare in 1995 which hopefully should have moved more people into the workforce.

My message is that America needs to see to it that there are indeed real opportunities for those willing to work hard. As for the drug addicts and the out of wedlock mothers, all I can say is that they can seek help from private charity groups.

Well wealth builds upon wealth. TO stop poverty, you must some how stop wealth. How can any one individual do this?? I am not sure.

Nothing is infinite, everything is finite. As the saying goes Money doesn't grow on trees

Ask youself, does college Bachelor degree hold the same weight now, as it did 40, 30, 20 years ago?? No.

Why not??

Cause our society bases itself on competition. Well in a competition someone has to lose. In essence our society ensures losers, it ensures poverty.

Your assumption is that wealth is something like a box of pizza. When the slices are all gone, there are no more to go around.

Your premise is false.

In the past, wealth was directly proportional to natural resources and the manufacturing of those resources. So, your premise had some value in the days of FDR, etc.

But, who is the most wealthy individual in the United States? What product does he manufacturer?

How can you say that money doesn't grow on trees? Of course it does. It grows in the form of intellectual resources.

Competition is good on a variety of fronts. It improves quality. It leads to innovation. It keeps the value of products high and it drives the economy.

An economy without competition leads to poverty. Look around the world where there is outright massive poverty and you'll see economic systems that don't believe in the concept of competition. They dole out "wealth" like it's slices from a hot and ready cheap box of pizza.

And the result? Massive poverty.

On the individual front, the most important thing that people can do is behave in positive ways as I pointed out previously. One of those positive ways is to educate themselves on the economic systems and their real-world results throughout history.

When they do so, they will realize that systems that don't rely on channeling competition into a positive direction (as capitalist systems do), that do not include the freedom to succeed (and thus to fail) fail in their entirety. This is true of corrupt dictatorships in Africa and the middle east. And, it's true of socialist economies in Europe and elsewhere which are imploding under the weight of their obligations as a welfare state and the lack of productivity ensured by their denigration of competition.

Your "analysis" of the economy is a gross oversimplification.

Just looking at the DOW 30 indicates there is still much in manufacturing of products not just intellectual resources.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cp?s=^dji

In the case of the DOW, its Big Macs, not pizza.

One cause of poverty is the economy not being able to produce enough jobs to employ everyone who wants a job. It's also interesting to note that when we get good job numbers, the fed starts raising interest rates to slow things down. It becomes a trade off between inflation and job creation.

Money is not as finite as it is being suggested here IMHO.

For example. When people save money in the bank, that money is actually used for loans to others. Those loans are used for all sorts of things. For the following example lets say it is for buying a house. (note: one of the effects of keeping interest rates as low as they have been, is a reduced rate of savings in this country).

The saver makes money because of the interest paid on their savings (as small as it is). The lender makes money from the interest paid on the loan (ditto). And those taking the loan make money as the value of that home increases. Society makes money from all of this because people are employed to manufacture the materials, transport the materials, build the home, provide services to the homeowner, etc. Not to mention those employed at the lending institution, those employed at the reality office, and all the other service businesses associated with a home purchase, and of course there are the profits of the builder. All leading to tax revenue for the country, more money being spent in the community (wages translate into food, clothes, video games, etc), and it goes on and on and on.

Of course the real estate market could crash resulting in a financial loss on the home for the buyer, but this is rarely seen in this country. The long term national trend has always been increased value for real estate over time, with a few, short term exceptions.

Similar examples exist for money invested in retirement savings, 401ks, etc, etc, not to mention the positive effects of simply spending it on gum and pop-tarts.

The bottom line is, money is always growing and how people choose to either spend or save it has far reaching effects on the growth of money elsewhere. There is nothing about our economy that suggests money, or wealth if you prefer, is finite IMHO.

That brings us back to the topic at hand:

Name ONE concrete thing we can do as INDIVIDUALS (and not through the State) to reduce poverty in America and why would it work?

One thing we could do would be to save more using any of the available vehicles to do so. By saving more we allow more money to be loaned out to others (the government restricts how much a lending institution can loan out based on the assets the institution holds).

Making more loans available would allow more businesses to start up, which can lead to more available jobs. It allows more home purchases, car purchases, just purchases in general. As these purchases are made, the businesses associated with them grow and often, more jobs become available. As these purchases lead to higher production needs, more jobs become available to produce more of what is in demand. The balance between what Americans save (via bank account, 401k or whatever else) and what Americans spend, has a major impact on the availability of employment in this country. More jobs mean less unemployed Americans, and less poverty overall. Less poverty would mean we would have more government resources available to address those still in need because what we have available would not be spread as thin.