Tidy Endings: An ideal we should work towards

Is society responsible for helping its members escape poverty?

What should be done about poverty?

In this post, I will try to:

1. Discuss what I have learned from this blog.

2. Discuss the existence of a solution.

Poverty has existed a long time, and I feel as if it is safe to say that the argument of poverty has existed just as long. But if this argument has existed so long, why is it still around? Why hasn’t it been solved? Why are we still arguing about it?

One of the problems is that the current ways of debating and arguing lead to only more debate. When one side “wins”, the argument is not finished. The “losing” side just argues louder and more frequently. If the losing side then wins out, the roles are simply reversed.

It is interesting to note that both sides think they are 100% true and right. Their side is the good side. And the other side is evil. Since the opposition is evil, any compromise with the opposition would be considered negotiation and coalescing with immorality.

So if one side “wins” the argument a WIN/LOSE scenario exists.

If the argument simply continues as is with people apathetic to seek real change, a LOSE/LOSE condition prevails.

If there is compromise, a LOSE/LOSE situation exists.
What should be done to bring about a WIN/WIN state?

My assignment for this post is to find a solution to the problem. I don’t know if that’s possible. My mind has been continually shaken and challenged this semester, so I want a solution, I want resolution. I want a nice and tidy ending. I don’t want to win the argument. I want to bring about an end to the argument. So again, HOW? How do I become an authority over an argument?

TOWARDS

I have only been taught to move towards being an authority. No agreements were made, promising me that I would be an authority come December.

I don’t have a solution. However, I know how to work towards the solution.

This is not a nice and tidy ending.

If good is seen as something completely devoid of evil, then neither side is good. They are both evil. Both sides are presumptuous, biased, and contain numerous jumps in logic. Both sides have to take responsibility for their own mistakes. Both sides have to realize that they are attempting to withhold a response to the things for which they are responsible. They way to move towards solving the problem is to take both sides through a set of steps (13 steps), so they will realize their own presumptions, just as I have. Both sides are responsible for different things. Until both sides see this, the argument and debate will not end. Once both sides see there fallacies, they will BEGIN to work towards solving the problem.

My ultimate conclusion

There is no attainable solution. We, however, must work TOWARDS the solution.

If I was the dad of two sons arguing over a toy, I think I would point out how dumb my children’s arguing was and try an show them how they are not individually entitled to the toy.

Once this sense of entitlement is gone, the children will no longer argue for the toy.

Once this sense of entitlement is gone, the argument will be gone.

No one will argue for something that they don’t deserve or know is false.

William Wallace

What is the ethos of this argument? What is the essence of the argument? Upon what are people actually disagreeing? I think the ultimate question of this argument is "Does society have a role to play in the lives of the poor?"

I have made a list that organizes the general thoughts on the ethos of the argument. Notice that these are the most prevalent opinions among people, and I am not agreeing/disagreeing with any part/s of the list.

No, society has no role.

Drugs/Alcoholism

Bad life choices

Lack of personal responsibility

Lazy

Desire Sympathy

Yes, society has role.

Safer on streets than in neighborhoods

Society owes something to it’s individuals.

Abandonment

Lack of Government work programs

Profit driven commercialism (property goes to highest bidder)

We’re Apathetic

Amount of welfare received by famlies.

Situation is not their fault (abandoned my husband), so society should help

Implications

But what are the implications of this argument? Like any serious argument, a negative peace develops. When one side is winning out, the losing side does everything in it's power to win. Once it does, the roles are reversed. This creates a win/lose cycle that is enveloping to anyone involved.

For my next blog post, I am going to attempt to define the ethos unbiasedly. To do this, I will have to make my topic more specific, so I am going to examine the different ways to end fix poverty and homelessness.

What are the different ways to eliminate poverty?

1. Redistribution through taxes (not necessarily governmental): World Bank Site

I had a hard time understanding this site and the World Bank's purpose. I will continue reading, however, I think the the World Bank thinks that the "Global Wealthy" (This term was not defined on the World Bank site) should be taxed. The money from this taxation would then be given to the "Global Poor" in cash.

2. Lowering Tax rates The Christian Science Monitor site

Explains how (with statistics) that lowered tax rates lead to increased economic activity which leads to a decrease in poverty levels.

3. Assistance through welfare:
Research in progress

4. Privatized Assistance through contributions.

In this line of though, private organizations are held responsible for providing assistance to poor people. Divisions arise when the type of assistance is considered. Types of assistance include direct cash contributions, contributions to organizations.

5. Privatized Assistance through services.

This camp supports the idea that giving someone money, food or clothes will not fix poverty. These organization try to point poor people to services or provide services such as housing, health maintenance, employment, education etc.

6. Government work programs.
This camp supports the idea that the government should create programs that would create jobs. Examples from the past include the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works Administration.

Please comment with suggestions about other camps or schools of thought on ways to fix poverty.

Have you ever learned something new that you didn't even know existed? Not just didn't know much about it, but you actually didn't know you didn't know?

Facts on Trauma and Homeless Children
Did you know that:

-Families make up 40% of the homeless population
-1.3 million children are homeless during a year.
-At age 8, 1 in 3 homeless children have a major mental disorder.
-Homeless children are 2x as likely to have a learning disability and 3x as likely to have an emotional or behavioral problem.

These statistics are eye opening and suprising for me.

Sure, I see poor or homeless people every day, but personally, these facts about children strike me down deep. I normally think of homelessness as a terrible way to live the end of your life, but it's also a terrible way to begin your life.

Upsetting Honesty

Because my family and I are for the most part financially stable, I can not understand why someone would be complacent in their poverty or homelessness. I feel as if there MUST be some kind of way out that they are simply too lazy to find. However, my religion does tell me to have compassion on the poor. In fact, my religion tells me to see the poor as Christ, and what I would do for Christ, I should do for the poor. As a male, I also feel as if I need to protect females as I am walking down the street. For example, I always like walking behind females when on Franklin Street because I am scared of a possible attempt my someone on the street to harm her.

Who would no otherwise?

At what would you stop to save your life? At what would you stop to preserve the lives of you family and children?

When thinking about crime commited by poor people my initial thought is to hold them responsible for their actions. Just like any other citizen, they had the choice of whether to commit the crime. Since they commited the crime, they should have to pay the consequences.

However, I wonder why they would commit the crime in the first place?

If I had no money and no food, yet my children were hungry or starving, I would find some way to get money. I hope I would seek employment to make money in fair and honest way. However, if for some reason I am not able to get a job or get enough money from a job, the fact still remains that my children are hungry at home.

I would probably decide to do whatever it takes to get money for food to feed my children.

Would you?

So, is crime among the poor, specifically poor families, not to be expected?

For this assignment, I will try to become an "expert" in the subject of poverty. Please note that the ultimate goal of this blog, is to move towards becoming an authority over the subject of poverty.

What, if any, is the causal relationship between one's upbringing and the way they treat or see homeless people?

The first time a child goes to a downtown area in a major city, they are likely to see, for the first time, an great deal of need and poverty. Seeking answers to questions such as Why are these people here? Do they not have a home to go to? and Why can't they afford food?, the child will most likely go to their parents. The parent's response to these burning questions will have an impact on the child for years to come. If the parent attempts to hide their child from the truth or speak of the poor in disgust, the child will have a negative opinion of the person for years to come.