Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (80)	9/13/2005 10:20:45 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

Anyone else have an opinion? I laughed out loud when I heard that idea because it came from people who were supposedly looking out for the poor people who got stuck in the Superdome. The way the 911 fund worked, the payouts were based on standard insurance-type calculations of lifetime earnings lost. For poor people, that would be next to nothing. And then there's the problem that the catastrophies were two entirely different things. The point of the 911 fund was to protect the airline industry from lawsuits. There's no comparable responsible party here to protect. The cement manufacturers for the walls that breached maybe? LOL.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (80)	9/13/2005 11:24:21 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2253

I hate these facile, "Quick! Throw money at it!" solutions. What has been exposed (at least it certainly is being exploited as a talking point in columns and on all the political shows) is the extent and condition of the poor in NO (and by extrapolation, the rest of the US- judging from that awful Mythbusting column that had Megan up in arms). How can we allow this to happen, say the handwringers. Well, imo, the current system perpetuates itself despite the amount of benefits and money put into it. Until we confront the fact that each generation raised within the culture and peer pressure of poverty doesn't escape it, we won't solve the problem. It is far more painful to look at- and hold responsible--these cultural influences than to throw more money at the problem. Somewhere in all that reading this morning, someone wrote, "Saying the ultra-poor suffer more than the not-ultra poor is just another way of defining poor." It just isn't very constructive. Another Galt piece you didn't copy was "The Poor Really Are Different". In this she discusses the issue of peer pressure and some of the reasons people can't seem to make decisions that would get them out of the current situation. She doesn't offer any solutions. Money buys material goods, which are not really the biggest problem that most poor people in America have. And I don't know how you go about providing the things they're missing: the robust social networks, the educational and occupational opportunity, the ability to construct a long-term life instead of one that is lived day-to-day Newt Gingrich once advocated taking children from these environments and placing them in orphanages (a poor term choice). Obviously, this was a pretty drastic proposal we wouldn't want to impose, but until we begin to think outside the box of the welfare entitlement system, I don't believe things will change. Why not offer boarding schools where the children are no longer exposed to the 'hood, to the prevailing culture fulltime, where the teaching will involve the setting of long-term goals and reward achievement and hard work, and greatly reduce the self-defeating influences of their environment I know I am horribly non-pc- and that this is an extreme proposition- but my work as a social worker years ago left me very negative about much of our system and that opinion hasn't improved over the years. When something continues to fail, it makes no sense not to try at least experimentally- some new, even radical approaches. Many people in other times and situations have given up their children in hopes of a better life for them, sending them elsewhere for more opportunities or just to be safe. There must be some way to break these cycles.