American attitudes, where are we at today.

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to wbjones: I'm saying what needs to be said, in clear unambiguous language. To do otherwise just glosses over the problem. I said that if you are adult working a minimum wage job, there is a serious problem with you. Not finishing high school, choosing to have children with a man who can't or won't support his children, not having any family ties, and not having enough skill or personality to get more than a minimum wage job- that qualifies as "something wrong with you" in my world. They still have the opportunity to fix their life. What you are describing- is a fraction of a fraction of the situations that result in poverty in the real world. Your solution may work in that case. You could also suggest that people don't wear seat belts, because in some cases you will be thrown free. I'll continue wearing my seat belt. And I'll keep recommending personal responsibility and encouraging people to pick themselves up, rather than say they are doomed and not offer a workable solution. Your attitude towards me is a direct example of your flawed thinking. You attack me for making the right choices in life. I take responsibility for myself and provide for my family. I made personal sacrafices to get where I am. Yet you make me the bad guy for being the good guy. It's increasing theme in today's society. It's easier to blame, put down, and try to discredit those that succeed rather than stepping up and taking responsibility for your own actions. Good luck with that strategy, I don't see it working any time soon.

last I'll say …. I'm really not attacking you …. just hoping you'll understand that, while you're "perfect" lots of folk aren't …

do you really think that most women CHOOSE to have babies by men they KNOW won't stick around to do their part ? really ? there's you condescending attitude again

there are plenty of folk that don't finish HS because they can't do the work, or that's the absolute highest they could aspire to … they still become adults and have to find work … all they're capable of is min. wage jobs … yes there IS something "wrong" with them … they weren't blessed with your level of intelligence … again, you condescending attitude

these aren't "problems" (lives) that can be fixed in most cases …

it's wonderful that you don't live where much of this is prevalent … but I assure you that here in rural Appalachia there is a lot of these "problem" folk (as you call them)

and again … your analogy of seat belt use is another example of your condescending attitude …

the points I'm making aren't nearly as isolated as you think they are

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

This is a very interesting topic that probably deserves a separate thread of its own. In fact, there was a convocation this past week at my alma mater about this very subject. (i.e., Roger Williams University). But it's an extremely volatile topic, at least here in the polarized USA. And there are some real jackasses here on this forum (they, and I, know who they are) just lurking in the shadows, to invoke the "bigotry" term to anybody who doesn't share the same view as theirs. And they get off on that. I hope this topic moves forward so they can enlighten us with their politically correct solutions, rather than just evoking the "bigot" word to those who are attempting to identify the real problem and possible solution.

Gary wrote:

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

This is a very interesting topic that probably deserves a separate thread of its own. In fact, there was a convocation this past week at my alma mater about this very subject. (i.e., Roger Williams University). But it's an extremely volatile topic, at least here in the polarized USA. And there are some real jackasses here on this forum (they, and I, know who they are) just lurking in the shadows, to invoke the "bigotry" term to anybody who doesn't share the same view as theirs. And they get off on that. I hope this topic moves forward so they can enlighten us with their politically correct solutions, rather than just evoking the "bigot" word to those who are attempting to identify the real problem and possible solution.

The biggest issue with criminals and how many we lock up... is why are prisons a for profit enterprise? I have read several stories of judges getting thrown off the bench and investigated for taking kick backs for every person they "send up the river". What those prisons make per prisoner is sickening.. and if you look at the problems the for profit prisons are starting to have, it is obvious that all the money they are taking in does not go towards keeping the prisoners fed, healthy, or even safe from each other or the guards.. There have already been several riots over the conditions the prisoners are being kept, I expect there will be quite a few more

In reply to wbjones:

last I'll say …. I'm really not attacking you …. just hoping you'll understand that, while you're "perfect" lots of folk aren't … do you really think that most women CHOOSE to have babies by men they KNOW won't stick around to do their part ? really ? there's you condescending attitude again there are plenty of folk that don't finish HS because they can't do the work, or that's the absolute highest they could aspire to … they still become adults and have to find work … all they're capable of is min. wage jobs … yes there IS something "wrong" with them … they weren't blessed with your level of intelligence … again, you condescending attitude these aren't "problems" (lives) that can be fixed in most cases … it's wonderful that you don't live where much of this is prevalent … but I assure you that here in rural Appalachia there is a lot of these "problem" folk (as you call them) and again … your analogy of seat belt use is another example of your condescending attitude … the points I'm making aren't nearly as isolated as you think they are

I don't see where I was condescending about women making poor choices about who they decide to have babies with. I stated fact. If they decide to have babies with someone unfit to be a father, they have to live with the consequences. Unless you feel that just calling it a poor choice is condescending. Maybe your definition of poor choice is different from mine. But in the context of this discussion- avoiding poverty- I believe the argument that it's a poor choice is a solid one. Many of these "men" (that is definitely condescending, and deservedly so) have children from more than one woman that they are not taking care of. Woman #1 made a poor choice. Woman #2... What do you think?

Read your post. You are basically saying that poor people are stupid, with no hope. And we should treat them like they are stupid. They can't help themselves? Can't finish high school? Only capable of minimum wage jobs? Remember when certain races we thought to be incapable of learning? Remember when women were treated that way? I thought that kind of thinking was refuted long ago. Did that not apply to Appalacians?

Now go back and read my posts. I said that they suffer the consequences of their own decisions, but it's not too late to pull themselves out of it. I have said that they are capeable of so much more. How is that condescending?

I don't live in Appalacia. I live in California. But I don't think people are any smarter out here, do you have proof otherwise? On a daily basis I interact with low skilled, under educated, inexpirienced people who seem to be able to make a living just fine. I've been in the industry a while now, and I've seen the same people learn and grow. Many have started their own businesses. Many of them came here with nothing, and didn't even speak English. So please excuse me for having faith in people, I'm sorry that you have lost yours.

In reply to NOHOME:

This subject has been more heatedly argued in the past then the poverty discussion.

To answer your question, we catch a lot of the criminals, and have harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Many would also argue that with more criminals in jail, we have less out on the streets commiting crimes.

This does tie directly into the poverty discussion, and I'm surprised that no one had mentioned it yet in that context. A large portion of those with a criminal record live in poverty. Part of it is because they make poor choices. But it's also more difficult to escape poverty with a criminal record. Many of the better jobs do background checks. I'm honestly undecided on that issue.

On one hand, I feel if they did the crime, they must live with the consequences. And I completely understand why anyone would be reluctant to hire a convicted felon.

On the other hand, if they paid their debt to society, I feel it can be detrimental to continue punishing them (and their family.) This can also lead to highter recidivism.

Part of the lesson is accepting responsibility for their actions and the consequences that come with those actions.

One of those is hurting your future. Somebody who has a criminal record can still become a functioning member of society if THEY WANT TO.

Nevermind.

I linked an article that made it abundantly clear that those who make the laws have lost touch with reality but I'm pretty sure it was a satirical piece.

And now back to our regularly scheduled sometimes pulse raising but informative discussion...

mad_machine wrote:

Gary wrote:

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

This is a very interesting topic that probably deserves a separate thread of its own. In fact, there was a convocation this past week at my alma mater about this very subject. (i.e., Roger Williams University). But it's an extremely volatile topic, at least here in the polarized USA. And there are some real jackasses here on this forum (they, and I, know who they are) just lurking in the shadows, to invoke the "bigotry" term to anybody who doesn't share the same view as theirs. And they get off on that. I hope this topic moves forward so they can enlighten us with their politically correct solutions, rather than just evoking the "bigot" word to those who are attempting to identify the real problem and possible solution.

The biggest issue with criminals and how many we lock up... is why are prisons a for profit enterprise? I have read several stories of judges getting thrown off the bench and investigated for taking kick backs for every person they "send up the river". What those prisons make per prisoner is sickening.. and if you look at the problems the for profit prisons are starting to have, it is obvious that all the money they are taking in does not go towards keeping the prisoners fed, healthy, or even safe from each other or the guards.. There have already been several riots over the conditions the prisoners are being kept, I expect there will be quite a few more

There are approximately 200,000 inmates in private prisons in the US:

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf

out of a total prison population of 2,266,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

or less than 10%. Facts are funny things, ya know? Looks like my oh so backward home state has 17, yes 17, inmates in private prison. Yeah, somebody's making a E36 M3load of money off them.

There's also this gem: if you don't want to go to jail then don't break the law. I'm pretty lenient socially but have no sympathy for criminals.

Boost_Crazy wrote: I don't see where I was condescending about women making poor choices about who they decide to have babies with. I stated fact. If they decide to have babies with someone unfit to be a father, they have to live with the consequences.

So, you think that women go out looking for creeps to breed them, and don't think that is a condescending attitude?

I am pretty sure most men are pretty good at presenting themselves in a positive light if the opportunity to get a little bit of Bob Costas is involved. They show themselves to be bums after the fact.

Rape? Nah, that doesn't happen. They should have made better decisions.

So, a young woman who has minimal schooling and a limited world view as well, living in an area with abject poverty, massive illiteracy, and no internet is somehow supposed to sit up in bed and shout "Eureka! I think I'll move, because there is better opportunity elsewhere!"??

The reality is some of these girls are just trying to do the best they can. They meet a guy who seems OK, fall for him (kind of how it works everywhere), and believe he'd make a great husband/ father. It's a better choice than selling drugs or prostitution.

But the odds are stacked against them in impoverished areas. The men are bums, and the woman have no other examples of what a "decent" guy (or life) is.

Women have been living with the consequences of unplanned pregnancy since the dawn of time- it's the MEN who both cause the problem, and abandon it once they have created it.

Oh, and Applachia is a VERY different place then California. The poverty rate can approach 40% of the population (10X Vacaville). But (of course), you already knew that.

I get your point, and agree in part. But I can't figure out if you are presenting it in extreme manner for the effect, or if you are actually as blind and uncaring as you claim.

SVReX is right about a bunch of the problems women in poor areas face but I need to make one correction: in some cases very young women see their way out of their parent's house and into a doublewide of their very own as getting married and will go to some length to accomplish that to possibly include an 'oopsie' pregnancy. That's only trapping them and continuing the cycle of poverty, though.

Seen it more than once, there are a couple of prime examples in my extended family. These families live hand to mouth, there is no long term planning. I love 'em but still have to shake my head sometimes.

Boost_Crazy wrote: On one hand, I feel if they did the crime, they must live with the consequences. And I completely understand why anyone would be reluctant to hire a convicted felon. On the other hand, if they paid their debt to society, I feel it can be detrimental to continue punishing them (and their family.) This can also lead to highter recidivism.

Here is a question for you. Many of those criminals started early, or wound up in person at an early age.. long before the part of their brain that inhibits rash actions is fully developed. I know at 18 I did some things I should have gone to jail for, or paid a fine for, but never got caught.. I never thought about how it would affect my future later down the road.. how many of these inmates were in the same situation?

I am not saying we need to be "soft on crime" but I think we are "too hard". The worst thing we ever did was mandatory sentencing.. took all the leeway away from the judges.

I also think that education is the key.. smart people are less likely to do violent crime (stealing from the hedgefund is a different matter :) ) It also does wonders for getting people out of poverty. Instead of cutting back on education in this country, we should be expanding it.. and making it more fair.

In my home state of NJ.. you have places like Princeton where the local public High School is better than the college I went to.. and on the other side you have places like Camden were they can barely get enough books for the kids. Education is one of those things that should be more socialized.

My two biggest feelings on things is Health Care and Education. If you are healthy and educated, you can do anything

Curmudgeon wrote:

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

It's a combination of the war on drugs and 'three strikes, you are out'. The first I'm not in the mood to argue about right now, the latter was in response to a surge in the crime rate several years ago. Violent crime rate, nationwide: Property crime rates are harder to find for the nation, this Utah compared to the US is about the best one I could find: California's law was passed in 1994. Other states adopted (or not) at around the same time. This study says there MAY be a correlation but quantifying it is difficult; no one is surveying potential criminals asking them 'did the three strikes laws make you decide not to kill or rob someone?'. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm It's possible to holler 'correlation is not causation' or 'three strikes is too tough' but the fact remains that SOMETHING changed at about the time these two crossed. The price is we have more people in the slammer. Is that a perfect solution? Hell, no. There ain't no such animal. So lemme ask: if you were a legislator faced with the same situation, what would YOU do? Keep letting your constituents get killed and murdered? Let their property get stolen? And yeah I know what a cesspool the US is compared to the oh so civilized parts of the world.

Unfortunately, what I get from this is that USA is a country with a barely controlled population that would more likely than not harm you if not for draconian punishment.

That does not bode well.

My mantra to finding the truth has always been to follow the money trail upstream cause like water, it flows from the source. Jails have been privatized and somebody is making a boat-load of money off this. I see it this way, if I can put taxpayers in jail, and get tax payers to pay for this, I have a perpetual money machine.

NOHOME wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

It's a combination of the war on drugs and 'three strikes, you are out'. The first I'm not in the mood to argue about right now, the latter was in response to a surge in the crime rate several years ago. Violent crime rate, nationwide: Property crime rates are harder to find for the nation, this Utah compared to the US is about the best one I could find: California's law was passed in 1994. Other states adopted (or not) at around the same time. This study says there MAY be a correlation but quantifying it is difficult; no one is surveying potential criminals asking them 'did the three strikes laws make you decide not to kill or rob someone?'. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm It's possible to holler 'correlation is not causation' or 'three strikes is too tough' but the fact remains that SOMETHING changed at about the time these two crossed. The price is we have more people in the slammer. Is that a perfect solution? Hell, no. There ain't no such animal. So lemme ask: if you were a legislator faced with the same situation, what would YOU do? Keep letting your constituents get killed and murdered? Let their property get stolen? And yeah I know what a cesspool the US is compared to the oh so civilized parts of the world.

Unfortunately, what I get from this is that USA is a country with a barely controlled population that would more likely than not harm you if not for draconian punishment. That does not bode well. My mantra to finding the truth has always been to follow the money trail upstream cause like water, it flows from the source. Jails have been privatized and somebody is making a boat-load of money off this. I see it this way, if I can put taxpayers in jail, and get tax payers to pay for this, I have a perpetual money machine.

You need to look at the post about the 'private prison money machine' and not get all knee jerk about it. The bare facts of that post: less than 10% of the US prison population is in private prisons. There's not anybody really making bank off of that. Total US prison population is less than 1% of the population as a whole; that's in the Wiki link. Quit believing all that crap they feed you up there. On second thought, if it means you won't retire down here then by all means believe away. That'll keep housing prices reasonable.

The facts are as I stated: the real reasons for the large prison population are the war on drugs and the 'three strikes' laws which are (as noted in the Cali study I linked) geared mainly toward violent reoffenders.

Me? I've had enough of that bleeding heart liberal 'it ain't really their fault' crap. I prefer that some violent azzhole who's been given three chances and screwed all of them up be thrown in the slammer for the rest of their lives rather than have them out cruising the streets.

Curmudgeon wrote:

NOHOME wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

NOHOME wrote: OK, so maybe out of left field here, but I was wondering: Of all the sovereign nations on the planet, the USA is now the country with the highest percentage of its population locked behind bars. That freaks me out on two levels: 1-I don't want to go there because it is obviously a country of criminals. OR.... 2- I don't want to go there because the "Man" is out to get me and toss me in jail to satisfy some unspoken agenda. I mean, what's the deal with the USA? Have speeding and parking tickets become mandatory jail sentences? Does putting people in jail somehow help pay off the national debt? I mean, SOMEONE has to be getting rich off of all these people being in jail or they would not be there right? Kinda like wars, where we would not have those either if people were not getting rich of of making bombs and bullets.

It's a combination of the war on drugs and 'three strikes, you are out'. The first I'm not in the mood to argue about right now, the latter was in response to a surge in the crime rate several years ago. Violent crime rate, nationwide: Property crime rates are harder to find for the nation, this Utah compared to the US is about the best one I could find: California's law was passed in 1994. Other states adopted (or not) at around the same time. This study says there MAY be a correlation but quantifying it is difficult; no one is surveying potential criminals asking them 'did the three strikes laws make you decide not to kill or rob someone?'. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm It's possible to holler 'correlation is not causation' or 'three strikes is too tough' but the fact remains that SOMETHING changed at about the time these two crossed. The price is we have more people in the slammer. Is that a perfect solution? Hell, no. There ain't no such animal. So lemme ask: if you were a legislator faced with the same situation, what would YOU do? Keep letting your constituents get killed and murdered? Let their property get stolen? And yeah I know what a cesspool the US is compared to the oh so civilized parts of the world.

Unfortunately, what I get from this is that USA is a country with a barely controlled population that would more likely than not harm you if not for draconian punishment. That does not bode well. My mantra to finding the truth has always been to follow the money trail upstream cause like water, it flows from the source. Jails have been privatized and somebody is making a boat-load of money off this. I see it this way, if I can put taxpayers in jail, and get tax payers to pay for this, I have a perpetual money machine.

You need to look at the post about the 'private prison money machine' and not get all knee jerk about it. The bare facts of that post: less than 10% of the US prison population is in private prisons. There's not anybody really making bank off of that. Total US prison population is less than 1% of the population as a whole; that's in the Wiki link. Quit believing all that crap they feed you up there. On second thought, if it means you won't retire down here then by all means believe away. That'll keep housing prices reasonable. The facts are as I stated: the real reasons for the large prison population are the war on drugs and the 'three strikes' laws which are (as noted in the Cali study I linked) geared mainly toward violent reoffenders. Me? I've had enough of that bleeding heart liberal 'it ain't really their fault' crap. I prefer that some violent azzhole who's been given three chances and screwed all of them up be thrown in the slammer for the rest of their lives rather than have them out cruising the streets.

Fully agree with your last two paragraphs. Unfortunately, the growing number of in-mates confirms the impression that the country is becoming a criminalized society. That is just not a good thing.

Another fun numbers game is that it cost about 50k/year or so to lock someone up. So, about twice what it cost to carry a retired person on the tax roles.

A quick search on SSI states says that by 2033 there will be 2 workers for every retiree. Add the two group together and you have less than two workers trying to carry just these two loads. That cant be a good thing.

Also, full disclosure...I is an American. Just living in Canada. I moved here after we got married partly cause the Canadian wife-unit has always considered the US as "too dangerous". Europe and SA she is OK with, but the USA scares her. Go figure.

In reply to NOHOME:

When the criminal population incarcerated is less than 1% I'm going to go with the news media has (as usual) reported only the crap that they see as selling ad space. 'If it bleeds it leads'. I feel sorry for anybody who's that easily led around by the nose.

'According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

I guess we do a better job of catching crooks than the rest of the world.

BTW, Louisiana is the US leader in private prisons so there's another reason I personally would avoid living in that state.

In reply to SVreX:

So, you think that women go out looking for creeps to breed them, and don't think that is a condescending attitude? I am pretty sure most men are pretty good at presenting themselves in a positive light if the opportunity to get a little bit of Bob Costas is involved. They show themselves to be bums after the fact. Rape? Nah, that doesn't happen. They should have made better decisions. So, a young woman who has minimal schooling and a limited world view as well, living in an area with abject poverty, massive illiteracy, and no internet is somehow supposed to sit up in bed and shout "Eureka! I think I'll move, because there is better opportunity elsewhere!"?? The reality is some of these girls are just trying to do the best they can. They meet a guy who seems OK, fall for him (kind of how it works everywhere), and believe he'd make a great husband/ father. It's a better choice than selling drugs or prostitution. But the odds are stacked against them in impoverished areas. The men are bums, and the woman have no other examples of what a "decent" guy (or life) is. Women have been living with the consequences of unplanned pregnancy since the dawn of tiIn reply to SVreX:

So, you think that women go out looking for creeps to breed them, and don't think that is a condescending attitude? I am pretty sure most men are pretty good at presenting themselves in a positive light if the opportunity to get a little bit of Bob Costas is involved. They show themselves to be bums after the fact. Rape? Nah, that doesn't happen. They should have made better decisions. So, a young woman who has minimal schooling and a limited world view as well, living in an area with abject poverty, massive illiteracy, and no internet is somehow supposed to sit up in bed and shout "Eureka! I think I'll move, because there is better opportunity elsewhere!"?? The reality is some of these girls are just trying to do the best they can. They meet a guy who seems OK, fall for him (kind of how it works everywhere), and believe he'd make a great husband/ father. It's a better choice than selling drugs or prostitution. But the odds are stacked against them in impoverished areas. The men are bums, and the woman have no other examples of what a "decent" guy (or life) is. Women have been living with the consequences of unplanned pregnancy since the dawn of time- it's the MEN who both cause the problem, and abandon it once they have created i Oh, and Applachia is a VERY different place then California. The poverty rate can approach 40% of the population (10X Vacaville). But (of course), you already knew that. I get your point, and agree in part. But I can't figure out if you are presenting it in extreme manner for the effect, or if you are actually as blind and uncaring as you claim.

Maybe "choosing to have babies" is the wrong description. Choosing to have unprotected sex with men unfit to be fathers is more accurate. But I'm sure now you will tell me that Appellation women don't know where babies come from, they only teach that in California. Rape? Really, rape? Sure, it happens, and a rapist is the lowest form of life. But you are talking about a very fringe, small percentage of the children born to unwed mothers, and it serves no purpose but to distract from the real issue. Once again- do you think Appalatians are inherently less intelligent than Californians? You do realize the California is a big place, not just LA and SF? me- it's the MEN who both cause the problem, and abandon it once they have created i Oh, and Applachia is a VERY different place then California. The poverty rate can approach 40% of the population (10X Vacaville). But (of course), you already knew that. I get your point, and agree in part. But I can't figure out if you are presenting it in extreme manner for the effect, or if you are actually as blind and uncaring as you claim.

Maybe "choosing to have babies" is the wrong description. Choosing to have unprotected sex with men unfit to be fathers is more accurate. But I'm sure now you will tell me that Appellation women don't know where babies come from, they only teach that in California.

Rape? Really, rape? Sure, it happens, and a rapist is the lowest form of life. But you are talking about a very fringe, small percentage of the children born to unwed mothers, and it serves no purpose but to distract from the real issue.

Once again- do you think Appalatians are inherently less intelligent than Californians? You do realize the California is a big place, not just LA and SF? If the people you speak of truly don't know any better- then they should be happy, right? Everyone around them is in the same boat, they don't know any different. They are living better than many other happy people throughout the world, and especially throughout history. If so, ignorance must be bliss, right? Unless they aren't as ignorant as you say- in which case, your "they don't know any better" argument falls apart.

I find it ironic that you call me blind and uncaring. I'm the one that can see that your narrow view and lack of faith in people only serves to perpetuate the cycle.

Since you feel I'm isolated from the situation, I'll share that I have a family member that has two kids from two "baby daddies"- both of which were in prison while she was raising the kids. She was brought up in an environment very much like you describe. Unfortunately, such places do indeed exist in California.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Once again- do you think Appalatians are inherently less intelligent than Californians?

Probably not. I'll bet most of them can spell "Appalachians".

You've beaten this dead horse enough.

In reply to SVreX:

Probably not. I'll bet most of them can spell "Appalachians".

See, I knew you had some faith in them! I'm pretty positive that most Californians couldn't spell "Appalachians," as I've demonstrated. Now just think of everything else they could be capeable of if you just gave them a chance. It looks like you are finally coming around.

Edit for a top tip: Those who wish to devolve a discussion to the point of criticizing spelling should perhaps proof read their own posts. But I'll let you off this T I M E.

They can out drink you in Mountain Dew. I guarantee it.

Boost:

I'll laugh along.

But a big part of my life for nearly 30 years has been helping people from Appalachia, the deep South, and even foreign countries expand their lives out of the poverty cycle.

I have helped some become homeowners, develop micro-businesses, get an education, along with all kinds of other things. There is even a solar collector business in Philippi WV that I had a hand in.

So, I don't mind laughing a bit, but please don't even get close to suggesting that I don't believe in their potential.

I am deeply experienced in walking alongside people and what it takes to give a hand up, without offering handouts.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

If you'd ever like to actually learn something, I'll be happy to share.

I can tell you what it was like in Haiti after the earthquake, Caribbean impoverished villages, Jamaican orphanages,Central American hovels, building a Costa Rican solar powered water heater micro-business for jobs for families who live in a landfill, or what it feels like digging a child's grave. I can share what it was like building a co-op in WV, and a lumber milling company to create jobs. I can tell you what it is like to live without running water for 2 years, and to get shot at and chased with a machete (because there really are people who hate you when you genuinely help the poor improve their own lives). I can introduce you to sharecroppers I know still living on the land their grandparents served as slaves. I can show you the inner city neighborhood where I grew up as a minority in a mixed race home. I have worked in the homes of Dominican sugar cane plantation slaves, but also in the home of a former US president.

I am not bragging. I am simply saying, I've experienced a lot, and know a lot of people from many walks of life. I have been deeply connected to many poor people. I can't tell you too much about statistics, I am just not that smart. But I can tell you about the people I've met and how they have improved their lives.

You've made your point. I told you I agreed with some of your points. The horse is dead.

Your rant now bores me. I'd rather hear about your life in Vacaville and the things you have experienced and learned firsthand than continue to listen to you tell me how wrong my life is.

In reply to SVreX:

Once upon a time, a couple pages ago, I thought we had agreed that we were talking about two seperate problems. I, about the majority of the poverty in this country. And you, amout the small percentage subset of third world type poverty in the United States. Since then you have added nothing of substance to the discussion.

You have said that I was condescending to the poor for stating fact.

Implied that I thought women who were impregnated through rape made a poor choice.

Brought my spelling errors to light. Thank you for that, there is no excuse for bad spelling.

Continue to judge me and disregard my expirience because of where I currently reside.

Now you bring up your numerous out of this country expiriences. While I commend you for your contributions, those experiences have little in common with poor U.S. citizens in the land of opportunity. If anything, success in those places reinforces my claim that it is possible for anyone here to pull themselves out of poverty.

I don't recall ever telling you how wrong your life is. If anything, I've reinforced that the work you do is not in vain. People can escape poverty. Unless you are a deadbeat dad, then I stand by my previous statements and you suck.

It's pretty nice out here in Vacaville, thanks for asking. It's just as you suspect. No poor in site, the streets are paved with gold. Don't tell anyone though, gotta keep out the riff-raff.

One quick question- if I told you that my Father spent years of his life scrounging through dumpsters to feed his family- is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Does that get me in the club? Do you even believe that is possible in the Golden State?

welp.. I'm done.. have a great day wit this thread

Well, it made it to 11-12 pages before it turned into a poo sandwich. I'm out, too.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

How 'bout we reign this in a little, OK?

And to everyone else, my apologies for contributing to the E36 M3fest.

Here's the bottom line- it's about balance.

There are a lot of things we agree on:

• There is a problem called poverty.

• Sometimes it is blown out of proportion for political or other gain.

• Some people make bad decisions, which magnifies the problem.

• Good decisions can make a big difference.

OK, so that is the problem. I am less interested in the problem than the solution.

I'm not hearing a lot of feedback from you about solutions, but I think it is somewhere between, "They made mistakes, now they should live with the consequences" and, "Pull up your bootstraps, move, fix it, and make better decisions- don't be a victim".

I don't disagree with either of those things, but they are incomplete and out of balance as a solution.

Here's another thing we agree on:

• The bleeding heart liberal solution of giving handouts fosters dependency, and contributes to the problem".

That doesn't work, because it is an unbalanced, extreme solution.

However, the opposite extreme is, "berkeley 'em. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it." It doesn't work either.

"Handouts" don't work, but neither does "hands off".

I have spent a lot of time with poor people in many places. I have seen many successes, as well as many failures.

The truth is sometimes bad stuff happens and it is not always the fault of the individual, and people are not always able to help themselves without assistance.

I have never seen someone raised in poverty fix themselves. Well, I've heard stories, but I haven't witnessed it.

What works really well in most cases is giving a "hand up". Coming alongside people in need, getting a little dirty, understanding them, and encouraging and enabling them to take it to the next level, without fostering dependency.

Example: Most people view Habitat for Humanity has an organization that builds houses for poor people. That's not true. Habitat makes low cost credit available to people who can not get credit in other ways. Their biggest function is as a LENDER, not a BUILDER. Then they work WITH them, to help them build THEIR home.

FWIW, we also agree that government solutions are usually not a good idea.