Edwards and Obama on Poverty

Check out Ed Kilgore's post on the contrasting approaches to fighting poverty that Barack Obama and John Edwards have outlined in recent days, "with the former arguing that some poor and isolated urban neighborhoods need to be broken up, and the latter arguing that they can be revitalized." Ed connects this to a long-running debate in anti-poverty circles going at least as far back as the 1968 primary where RFK had a more Obama-ish view and Edwards a more McCarthy-ish one.

More broadly, this seems to reflect the difference between a community organizing background and a more detached, "let's have some smart people study the problem" way of having approached the issue. In practice, though, this seems like the sort of subject where either candidate would wind up with a variety of different people working for them and end up espousing a mixed approach. What's more, it's not the 1960s and one assumes that any anti-poverty initiative will wind up heavily shaped by the views of influential members of congress who represent poor districts.

CORRECTION: I worded this backwards. It's Obama who wants intensive re-investment in poor communities and Edwards who wants to give poor individuals opportunities to move into other areas.

Photo by Flickr user Ellie van Houtte used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

The hood's so rad and I'm fucking glad!

Posted by Stephen Malkmus | July 20, 2007 5:36 PM

Living here in Philly, I see a lot of new Section 8 housing being built over a block or two, often in otherwise wealthier areas, rather than as sprawling complexes in deep ghetto areas.

It'll take some time to see how this will work out, but it seems to me the Obama approach makes sense in practice -- the lower-end housing doesn't overtake the neighborhood, and is in close proximity to higher valued property thus raising the value of the Section 8 homes.

It also keeps whole sections of the city from being written off.

Besides, hasn't the Edwards-ish approach already been tried (unsuccessfully) many times before?

Posted by Naveen | July 20, 2007 5:37 PM

The main difference is that Edwards is treating poor people as individuals, while Obama is adressing poor communities. The results, perhaps unintended though is that Obama seems only be addressing poverty in certain defined geographical areas. As recent studies have shown poverty is moving out of the inner cities iand into older suburbs, and it has never left rural areas.

In practice both the needs of individuals and in peril communities need to be addressed. So it's a good debate to have.

Posted by AJ | July 20, 2007 5:38 PM

Naveen- Both approached have been tried, the Great Society was a community based approach, but only in a half hearted way. One of the problems with the Obama approach, due to its narrow focus it is probably not politically sustainable over a long period.

Posted by AJ | July 20, 2007 5:42 PM

"it seems to me the Obama approach makes sense in practice ... Besides, hasn't the Edwards-ish approach already been tried (unsuccessfully) many times before?"

The only problem is that Matthew reversed the Edwards and Obama positions.

The position you think makes sense in practice is actually the Edwards position, and the position you think has been tried unsuccessfully is actually the Obama position.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 5:42 PM

Edwards isn't really arguing that poor neighborhoods "need to be broken up" (a phrase that doesn't really make sense), his plan calls for poor people not to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods as they are now. To some degree, this entails allowing people greater ability to choose where they would like to live (vouchers, various asset-building policies), but he's also calling for greater revitalization as well in the form of greater investment in clearing dilapidated housing, stepping stone jobs programs, and a Green Corps, a workforce dedicated to improving energy efficiency for low-income homes and small businesses.

Posted by Clark | July 20, 2007 5:45 PM

that Barack Obama and John Edwards have outlined in recent days, "with the former arguing that some poor and isolated urban neighborhoods need to be broken up, and the latter arguing that they can be revitalized."

Matt, you have Obama's and Edwards's positions on these issues switched around. Please correct this.

Posted by Christmas | July 20, 2007 5:49 PM

"Edwards isn't really arguing that poor neighborhoods "need to be broken up" (a phrase that doesn't really make sense), his plan calls for poor people not to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods as they are now. To some degree, this entails allowing people greater ability to choose where they would like to live (vouchers, various asset-building policies), but he's also calling for greater revitalization as well"

Hear, hear!

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 5:49 PM

"The only problem is that Matthew reversed the Edwards and Obama positions."

Three cheers for MY's amazing proof-reading abilities.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 5:49 PM

Universal Health Care including comprehensive social services, improved, overfunded, conscientiously run schools with competitively paid teachers and social workers, more parks, better public transit, less restrictions on ex-cons, more community policing and less adverarial, punitive law enforcement (especially around drugs, not to mention accelerated affirmative action on both ethnic and class-based lines are the real ways to end poverty.

Posted by Starry-Eyed Liberal Gregorio | July 20, 2007 5:51 PM

The 2004 Green Party vice presidential candidate, Pat LaMarche, did a tour of homeless shelters in the fall of 2004.

source:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0908-04.htm

Posted by Poverty Tour is so 2004 | July 20, 2007 5:52 PM

Without seriously overhauling/ dismantling unbridled global capitalism, any talk of quashing poverty at home or abroad is a pipe dream. Concentrated wealth is the cancer; the trickle down is toxic waste. You can have innovation and progress and excellent care and services without unfettered marketeering! You can have comprehensive social welfare without bloated bureacracy! Real scientific socialism has never worked, nor has it failed, because it has never been fully implemented! Half-measures availed us nothing! Break the yoke of capital, embrace global humanism!

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 6:00 PM

Matt, if you don't correct your post as per Petey's request, anyone reading this post after reading the Mark Schmitt post on this at TAPPED is going to wind up completely confused as to who stands for what.

Posted by Ryan | July 20, 2007 6:17 PM

Gregorio, thanks for giving me a good laugh. You could play Vegas with that act.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2007 6:38 PM

Marxists aren't discredited because they're not right, it's because they're not immediately profitable.

I.e., Pencil me in after Tony Clifton.

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 6:50 PM

I knew Tony Clifton. Tony Clifton was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Tony Clifton.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 7:20 PM

Petey, you're not even the latex left on the floor after peeling Tony Clifton off Bob Zmuda's face.

Posted by Greggy Kaufman | July 20, 2007 7:26 PM

There are two ways to dramatically reduce poverty (such as it is) in America:

1) Stop importing poor people.

2) Encourage poor Americans to have fewer children.

If memory serves, Bill Clinton enacted policies re 2) when he was governor of Arkansas (e.g., giving cash incentives for young female welfare recipients to use Norplant).

Poor, dysfunctional parents (the two go adjectives both apply, more often than not), tend to have children who grow up to become poor, dysfunctional adults, and thus continue the cycle.

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 7:41 PM

Yeah don't educate them or give them healthcare or improve their quality of life-- just population control because rich fucks need to get richer and these plebes have outgrown their usefulness now that we've outsourced factoryslaves to China.

BARF- oh wait, Clintondidit? In that case, sign me up!

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 7:53 PM

Let me see if I have your plan right Fred:

1. Kill the poor.

2. Those we don't kill, sterilize.

Did I get that right?

Posted by Kid Charlemagne | July 20, 2007 7:58 PM

Let me see if I have your plan right Fred:

1. Kill the poor.

2. Those we don't kill, sterilize.

Did I get that right?

Posted by Kid Charlemagne | July 20, 2007 7:59 PM

One thing that should be discussed more, at the risk of sounding like a Republican is: how are these candidates going to pay for their programs? Between their health care plans, anti-poverty plans, their climate change plans, and in Obama's case (his plan to expand the military by 92,000 troops), the price tag is getting large.

The difference, though, is that Edwards has been upfront about his belief that programs are more important than short-term balanced budgets. Obama hasn't; on the contrary, by all indications he's committed to Rubinesque budget hawkishness. What's more, Edwards would immeditely roll back Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy whereas Obama would keep them in place till they expire at the end of 2010 (for those making 250 k and up) Plus Edwards says he's open to increasing taxes on the wealthy beyond what they were when Bush came in and would increase taxes on capital gains--where the big money is.

In short, Edwards is being both fiscally responsible and honest. Obama, not so much.

Posted by david mizner | July 20, 2007 8:17 PM

"Yeah don't educate them or give them healthcare..."

"Kill the poor."

Now that you have that out of your systems, care to contest my post on its merits? Do you think it's bad to encourage poor people to have fewer children? If so, why? Why is it better to have more children born into poverty?

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 8:20 PM

Kill Fred!

sorry we meant to say sterilize Fred

Posted by the poor | July 20, 2007 8:29 PM

"In short, Edwards is being both fiscally responsible and honest. Obama, not so much."

Given all we know about how Obama sees his political base and is conducting his campaign, can anyone imagine him spending a penny of his political capital on stuff like this once in office?

I assume it would be just like Clinton in 1993, pushed aside to fight for priorities nearer to the administration's political heart.

The rationale Obama gives will be deficit reduction, of course, as it was in '93.

If you're unwilling to fight too hard for this stuff while trying to appeal to the Democratic primary electorate, what makes anyone think you'd fight for it in 2009?

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 8:36 PM

Now that you have that out of your systems, care to contest my post on its merits?

Well, Fred, my family comes from dirt-poor Italians who immigrated to this country at the turn of the century with nothing in their pockets. Within two generations, we are a prosperous family of professionals, teachers, attorneys, and at least two millionares. Why would I want to deny those coming after us that same chance at the American dream?

What are you afraid of?

Posted by Kid Charlemagne | July 20, 2007 8:41 PM

Kid Charlemagne,

"What are you afraid of?"

I'm afraid that today's poor people aren't advancing out of poverty the way your turn-of-the-20th Century Italian immigrant ancestors did. Since your ancestors came here before the advent of Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc., and succeeded, while today's poor have the benefit of those entitlements and mostly fail, I am skeptical that any schemes to increase government spending will turn today's poor into early 20th Century Italian immigrants.

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 9:10 PM

Given all we know about how Obama sees his political base and is conducting his campaign, can anyone imagine him spending a penny of his political capital on stuff like this once in office?

Yes, absolutely.

Posted by blah | July 20, 2007 9:15 PM

Petey,One of the reasons I support Obama is that I do like his view towards the problems. As someone who has worked with the poor for years in public housing, I tend to understand his thinking and ideas better. I also know what is wishful thinking and what is reality.
Edwards is a good person but, many of the ideas are not as practical or workable. He thinks if given this and that it will work.
No. People do best when empowered to face the challenge and work for something better. But, you also have to deal with those who are not interested in bettering themselves. They are too beaten down and have lost the spirit or it was consumed by substances.
Obama knows this and from working with the poor on a daily basis, he understands the possibilites and the reality.

Posted by vwcat | July 20, 2007 9:36 PM

"Yes, absolutely."

Y'know what? I take that back. I can imagine him doing so.

But he'd be less likely to do so in a serious way than Edwards, for reason that mizner and I both touch on above.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 9:57 PM

Awesome how Fred managed to propose a poverty-fighting plan that wouldn't help a single poor person. Compassionate conservatism, baby.

Posted by Steve | July 20, 2007 11:33 PM

[Edwards'] plan calls for poor people not to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods as they are now.

IOW, a default 'warehousing of the poor', which was a terrible idea in the 60s, and a terrible effect now. Two Americas.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 21, 2007 12:27 AM

Awesome how Fred managed to propose a poverty-fighting plan that wouldn't help a single poor person.

In a different post he would biologicalize the reasons why "today's poor people" aren't getting ahead. Then if called on it, Fred would retreat to liberal color-blindness and blame it all on "culture". It's layers and layers of some really old bullshit.

Where Fred provides a service is to make every cultural conservative not of his tribe aware of what American conservatism means and to make damn sure that the White People's Party is means them ill will no matter what.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 21, 2007 1:28 AM

Goodhope Road!

Just a shout-out to my past. Used to work on Goodhope Road, around Naylor, thirty years ago now.

Posted by Count Cant | July 21, 2007 3:08 AM

Do we actually need fewer people in this country? Wyoming could probably use more people. Hell, a little immigration and it might even be a real state.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2007 3:09 AM

I'm a center-left Clintonian neoliberal type, but I think that Gregorio has a point when he says that the problem is more in concentrated wealth than in poverty, although almost certainly not in the same way that Gregorio means.

To be more specific, I think that rich and upper-middle class people's overregulation of their residential neighborhoods forces a lot of people into poor neighborhoods with inadequate services by default. When you hear people of the wealthy suburbs speak about new ordinances, plans, etc, you hear them openly speaking of how to maximize property values. This may be good insofar as property values are a good measure of quality of life, but at a more basic level, it's the rather blatant behavior of a monopolistic property owner's guild. Oil companies may think about how to rig regulations to maximize oil prices, book publishers may think about how to charge the most for books, etc, but at least when they talk about laws that affect the prices they can charge, they have the decency to hide their real motivations. When home owners in highly regulated neighborhoods talk about rigging real estate markets, they do so completely openly and unabashedly, unaware that anyone could even think that they're doing anything wrong.

With responsive governments in classy suburbs and "good neighborhoods" monomaniacally focused on raising prices, is it any surprise that those without much money are forced to live in places without such responsive governments -- and the corresponding malfunctioning schools, potholed roads, etc?

Posted by Julian Elson | July 21, 2007 3:23 AM

Steve:

Ever consider that if you can reduce the number of future poor people, you could afford to spend additional resources on current poor people? On the contrary, if you import more poor people, and subsidize poor Americans to have more children than they can afford, you will have increasing numbers of poor people and consequently be able to spend less on a per-person basis to help any of them. You will find that societies with relatively few poor people tend to be more compassionate to their poor than societies where the demands of the poor threaten overwhelm the resources of the productive people.

Ed Marshall:

Why does everything have to be about race for you? Can't you find something to disagree with in what I've written here instead of imagining what I might write in a different post and responding to that imaginary post?

Posted by Fred | July 21, 2007 3:47 AM

Fred, your analysis is not even at an Econ 101 level. By your logic, Russia under Yeltsin should have been great for Russia's poor in terms of social spending because the population was falling (in part, due to there being more abortions than live births). Population growth is a tricky thing when it comes to economic growth, the welfare state, etc. For instance, many economists have theorized that many African states are actually under-populated with regard to achieving a high enough level of economic growth and industrialization. As such, having fewer people makes the remaining people poorer in such cases. Population growth can also lead to increased aggregate demand, helping to lead to higher economic growth. The feedback effects are too simple for a "fewer people = better for everyone (especially on welfare)" equation to work.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2007 4:53 AM

Birth Control seems to have stirred things up. Why?

Sex education will improve life for individuals and society.

Calling ALL CATHOLICS using birth control ( a Mortal Sin by

the Church) to stand up and explain why this is a good plan

for them and not for the poor?

My reason for mentioning one religious group is because of
the major hypocrisy found there.

The one and only issue which will NEVER be preached about from a Church pulpit. Why?
The pastor looks at his congregation with well planned families and can't bring himself to OFFEND THEM but will rail against politicans for other social issues.

Cash counts. Always has and always will.

Birth Control is important when addressing poverty. After all isn't that why so many middle to upper income couples use
birth control?

Posted by Midwest Maggie | July 21, 2007 7:57 AM

"Re-investment" in poor areas!

Such Orwellian doublespeak

There's nothing to reinvest - it's not as if these areas produce anything that is spent elsewhere - the notions like the "Comminity Reinvestment Act" and "spending money in our own community" are laughable in communities that already receive the lion's share of income from transfer payments from the productive portion of society

Such proposals are simply stealing more and lining ne'er-do-well's pockets. Better to lift up the ne'er-do-wells or give them a swift kick in the ass

I have lived in DC and NY (in the hood, blee) and the best thing the government could do NOW is clear out vast areas blocks and blocks of public housing and gov't owned land and crack houses and auction it off

Posted by Josef | July 21, 2007 8:20 AM

Washington Post's Steve Pearlstine (the raging Marxist they've assigned to write about biz/econ)
was lambasting the liberal/dem/afro government of DC for not spending enough hundreds of millions on "affordable" housing

DC has - with great intentions - been selling off and even giving away property, but requiring that some portion of the resulting projects be set aside for "working poor" people. This give away is not enough for Pearlswine. I was in DC yesterday reading him and thought he was going to call for a vanguard of workers and intellectuals to March on City Hall to institute a new commune.

At least DC government has the nerve (or desperation) to move in this direction. In NYC the union mob and the "community leaders" probably actually would try to kill politicians for clearing out the hellish blocks of housing authority blight. One City Council staffer already called for the assasination of another City Councilman (black) who refused to name a street in honor of a africanist thug named Sonny Carson. This pro-assassination city worker is hard to fire.

Where does Hillary, Edwards, or Obamba stand on these issues?
If they spoke up, that would saw much, but they don't, which says even more about their "urban policy"

Posted by Jozef | July 21, 2007 9:15 AM

Matt, your correction addresses the error in the way you quoted Kilgore, but you're still setting up a false dichotomy. It's not as if Edwards' sole policy instrument for addressing poverty is allowing poor people to relocate into other nieghborhoods.

Posted by Clark | July 21, 2007 9:22 AM

Here's why I like Obamas approach better. Let's not frigging kid ourselves. Inner City Poor is predominately people of color. There are a few white families living in Poverty along side, but we all know who really makes up the majority.

I have a problem with Edwards plan because I know that those vouchers are more likely going to go to poor white families so they can be escape from the area while leaving the people of color behind with no plan whatsoever to fix their neighborhoods. These programs have been around for a while and it's been done before and that's always been the pitfall. People of color are left behind , no matter how good the intentions , while white families get to move out. I am not convinced or confident that an Edwards Administration would take the steps needed to ensure that racial profiling is not used to determine who gets these vouchers. Every time a program is created that is geared towards the Poor , the white families are always the ones who benifit from them.

Obamas plan is better. His focus on saving the communities that these people are currently living in and building up the area as opposed to just allowing a few people to pick up and leave , while everyone else is left to nothing, is more progressive. It's better to fix the whole problem and help everyone as opposed to only help a selected few. Obamas plan takes more effort and more compassion which I fully believe an Obama Administration will have. Obamas plan of focusing on the actual inner city dilemma is more likely to create better jobs, provide better housing, create better schools, add better after school programs, and better the lives of people of color. While Edwards plan, again, will be more of the same. Racial profiling will be used to only allow poor white families to obtain vouchers while people of color are denied as usual. I'm sorry, but I am not buying into Edwards plan at all and I don't care if some people don't want to hear that. It's true and we all know it.

Posted by BlueDiamond | July 21, 2007 9:52 AM

Matt,
I would suggest that when you make corrections, you actually correct what you wrote, i.e. edit the original post. This is not a newspaper. You can change it, and add a note saying "Correction: I originally had Edwards and Obama's positions reversed".
Not everyone reads all the way to the bottom of every post, and you are likely to leave some people with the wrong impression.

Posted by Scot | July 21, 2007 11:02 AM

I'm confused but...are some on here actually suggesting Obama's position on poverty is about political expediency, but Edwards' is heartfelt?

Which one of the two candidates eschewed pursuing personal wealth in law to instead work in impoverished communities?

And which of the two only discovered poverty as the cause of his life in the past few years?

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Suggesting a man who's spent his life working in communities, often at low wages, is insincere on his poverty initiative. At some point, it goes beyond cynicism to the point of flat-out dishonesty.

Posted by Michael | July 21, 2007 11:25 AM

I assume, of course, that those questioning Obama's sincerity on the issue had no problem at all with other's questioning Edwards sincerity on same, be it on Tapped, or elsewhere.

Posted by Michael | July 21, 2007 11:27 AM

Why would you want to break up and disperse poor neighborhoods, where residents often have long-term ties, family, and access to resources that allow them to get by? How did the dispersal work for the poor people here in New Orleans? Not so well, I'd say. People here - in poor communities as well as middle- and upper-class - have often lived in these neighborhoods for generations. They know all their neighbors, they have family nearby, creating strong social networks that can help poor people get by - neighbors or family members to watch over the kids while you're at work, extended families that can share one car, etc. Just the sense of community alone - having friends to lean on, talk to, celebrate the small joys of life with, as we love to do here - can make life so much better. By dispersing people out, they're having to face the difficulties on their own, often in distant suburbs where they have to drive long distances to get to pricey grocery stores and other services.

Revitalize the neighborhoods - they desperately need it - but don't break social bonds by making people move.

Posted by nolagal | July 21, 2007 12:17 PM

Michael, Obama's campaign emphasizes a balanced budget and not raising taxes on the wealthiest. Then he wants to have an expensive antipoverty plan aimed mainly at a handful of large cities. No one's questioning whether or not Obama genuinely would like to help the poor, but he's going to have to make a choice.

It's also disingenous to say that Obama worked his entire life at low wages on poverty issues, while Edwards just recently decided that he would show interest. Obama worked a few years as a community organizer, laudable to be sure, but then began a law career. Edwards has been involved in helping the homeless in North Carolina and began after school programs for low-income children before he even began his political career. Again, I'm not knocking Obama.

Posted by Clark | July 21, 2007 12:18 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the long view of the revitalization plan also generally means poor folks (and probably even moreso black folks) will be dispersed from the area in question.

Think about it: Every marginal urban neighborhood which starts to hit (or even suggests hitting) a tipping point starts the gentrification process. This is happening all the more rapidly in NYC and from some of MY's posts also in DC.

The only upside is that some (but few) poor folks who own or acquire in the early stages win the real estate lottery and have a shot at escaping poverty.

Posted by batojar | July 21, 2007 3:53 PM

Clark--

That's a fair take, and I'd agree. However, some of the comments in here seemed more extreme. Petey, I think it was, who suggested both that Obama has disdain for his own base and doesn't care about the issue, is unlikely to fight for it in office, etc.

As far as I can tell, he's framed issues in terms of family and community consistently since his campaign began. Indeed, the word "community" itself is the 3rd most common word on his website, and it was the word he said more than any other (excluding words like "the" and "um") in the 1st debate. As such, while the timing of his release might come off as politically expedient, I don't see the policy proposal as anything but right in line with the core values and larger themes he's been running on since day 1.

I think all the candidates are going to have to face compromises once they get into office. I read somewhere that even "rolling back" (as opposed to "allowing to expire") the Bush Tax Cuts won't even cover the costs of either campaign's health care proposals (and that's not even considering what Hillary's as-yet-non-existent plan would cost).

This is why, as much as some might detest identity politics, to me its often most important. These policies are only important insofar as they expand on and elucidate the themes of the campaign, and offer insight into the decision-making process of the candidate. Rather than trying to trash one candidate as obviously insincere or irresponsible, or the other as a political opportunist, we should be drawing from this the exact conclusion Kilgore does: Obama's approach is more community-oriented, Edwards more policy-oriented.

The rest is almost masturbatory.

Posted by Michael | July 21, 2007 4:49 PM

Julian, I agree that you've got access barriers in some neighborhoods, but is there a solution? That is, you've got something over 50% homeowners saying apartment dwellers or section8's or whoever will come into the neighborhood and drop property values. And, since they're a majority, responsive politicians are trying to make them happy so they'll get elected. So then even if they're unable to jack up prices, they make sure that non-homeowners are treated as second class citizens (example, Long Beach, California's garage sale ordinance, which prevents street-side advertising and requires a permit, and treats homeowners differently than apartment dwellers, when in the meantime real estate people can still plant their signs on the corner). So if the actions seem to reflect popular will, how does one fix it? Wait until there's enough riots that cities are overruled in favor of "big planning"?

Posted by serns | July 21, 2007 6:02 PM

oops--

I meant, Obama's approach is more community-oriented, Edwards' more individual-oriented

Don't know how I got that mixed up. I think maybe had the phrase "Edwards' policy is more individual oriented" and then shortened it by deleting the wrong word. heh.

Posted by Michael | July 21, 2007 6:27 PM

Reality Man,

You are confusing yourself. I was not commenting on the broader economic impact of having more poor people, but merely on how adding additional poor people reduces the amount of government resources available to each poor person. You could argue, as some have, that adding more poor increases "aggregate demand", etc., but you would be hard-pressed to argue that increasing the number of poor people who consume more in government resources than they pay in taxes will somehow make more government resources available for each poor person.

Failing that, you will find it difficult to refute my previous comment that by reducing the number of future poor people, we will be able to spend more resources helping today's poor people.

Posted by Fred | July 21, 2007 6:39 PM

Re: I'm afraid that today's poor people aren't advancing out of poverty the way your turn-of-the-20th Century Italian immigrant ancestors did.

Contrary to public mythology, there were plenty of poor people in the US a hundred years ago. And 150 years ago. And 200 years ago. Yes, some people "advanced" out of poverty, though in many cases these were immigrants who were only momentarily poor when they rfirst came here: they had come from middle class or working class families to start with and soon found their way back into those classes in the USA (rather like college students are all temporarily poor while in school, but later rise more or less back up to where their parents were). But ask an 1890 share-cropper (even a white one) or an Appalachian mountain family c. 1870 how easy it was get out of poverty. Meanwhile at least today's welfare etc. to live (barely) above Third World standards. Rightwing tightwads who have a lust to see the poor dying in the gutters should board a plane to calcutta or Port au Prince to get their sadistic fix.

Posted by Jonf | July 21, 2007 8:29 PM

JonF:

Try re-reading my previous comments while being more rational and less emotional. Never did I advocate letting the "poor dying in the gutters"; on the contrary, I argued that we could spend more on each poor person if we could reduce the number of future poor people.

Posted by Fred | July 21, 2007 11:56 PM

Disregard the above post, as it appears their comments are down for everybody; to the people at TAPPED I apologize, presuming that the comments problem is indeed genuine though at quite a convenient time I must add. However, the reason why I said what I said is that not too long ago in a thread on TAPPED I was initially able to post as many links as I liked, and as I like to have links to back up a particular point there were a good amount of links; then after a little while I tried to post the next comment and it sent it to the screen where it says it's being held pending approval. So I tried separating it into smaller segments, and I'm not a computer expert so I was just guessing it might be a factor of how many hyperlinks are included in a post. But it still wouldn't work; yet I saw on another thread I was able to comment and even post more than one link, however immediately after I posted someone spammed a bunch of indeceipherable letters and numbers. I then wrote in that it was ridiculous for someone to be allowed to spam them yet I can't post comments on a very important thread. I think it was 27 pieces of spam, for which they apologized and removed, to their credit, though nobody ever mentioned why my comments on that particular thread were censored or hindered, however you want to refer to it. So I came back a couple days later and thought "What if I separate it into segments with only one link apiece?" so I tried that, and for whatever reason it worked. If anyone else was experiencing this problem I didn't hear about it, but anyway it appeared designed to make what I was saying much more choppy, cut up into one-link segments, and though I mentioned it more than once in other threads on there, nobody said anything about it to my knowledge. Regardless, I worked around it by posting things in small one-link segments and told them so. In other threads I was able to post however many links I wanted. So call it whatever you like, though I didn't say anything outside of on TAPPED. Then a couple days ago I tried to post on another thread and it blocked my comment. So I tried it a few times and left thinking maybe it was a technical problem, maybe censorship, I didn't see any mention of this problem on there so I waited a couple days. Then I go back onto the thread that had other peoples' comments on it and again I can't post. So I separated what I was posting into a couple of segments, each with one link. It didn't work; then I tried posting with no links at all.
Still it didn't work, and at that point, going by their past behavior it appeared that I was being censored again, perhaps for a comment I recently made about Iran being an independent country who knows? But it appeared that I was being blocked from commenting; the thread which I was trying to post on was a few days old but had other peoples' comments on it and I had bookmarked it instead of the main page; it was my fault for not at that point checking the main page where it had since been posted at some point that they were experiencing alleged technical problems with the comments feature. So though the underlying circumstances of me having been previously censored there were their fault, it was entirely my fault that I didn't check on the main page to see if they had yet offered any explanation, and for that I apologize. It would be nice to get an apology from TAPPED for censoring me in the first place not too long ago which led me to fly into a rage when it appeared they were censoring me yet again, however the chances of that are remote, especially considering how TAPPED consistently pays lip service to the official 9/11 myth, wringing its hands about "Al Qaeda", and though their motto is "Liberal Intelligence", the farthest to the Left they will go on the Iran matter still echoes the mainstream rhetoric that "Iran must be prevented from choosing to develop nuclear energy and/or weapons" and merely debates how best to go about that, nevermind the fact that Iran is an independent country. It's an illustration of how far politics have shifted to the conservative side in the U.S. since 9/11 that what passes for the mainstream position and what passes for the liberal position are both somewhat right-of-center especially in foreign policy matters. And as an aside, anybody out there that almost six years after 9/11 still thinks the official story is true, and further, writes articles that take for granted this myth, is
conceding the parameters of the argument to the Republicans. After how much time do you have to presume that a blog or a think tank would have to have had people there that had been exposed to the existence of a 9/11 truth movement, and out of curiosity if nothing else started looking into the details of 9/11? In doing so, it doesn't take long before you realize that there are some major impossibilities inherant in the official story, which should make a normal person want to investigate further, and then would find out even more impossibilities and "coincidences". Come on. It's been almost six years. There is enough evidence readily available just a google away, plenty enough to cook their goose several times over. So at what point can it be presumed it is willful avoidance of unpleasant information as opposed to simply not being aware that anything other than the official myth has occurred to anyone? Whichever it is, for TAPPED and for this blog and for every other blog that claims to be telling it like it is, they all need to take an afternoon and take a hard look at the details of that terrible morning that the whole foreign policy and much of domestic policy is wrapped around ever since; in looking at the details they would see who the real terrorists are. Sooner or later though, the truth about 9/11 will be mainstream, common knowledge and I wouldn't envy the blogs, pundits etc. who are among the last to abandon a story that just can't hold water.

Posted by Realist | July 22, 2007 1:37 AM

Re: By dispersing people out, they're having to face the difficulties on their own, often in distant suburbs where they have to drive long distances to get to pricey grocery stores and other services.

Actually it's the poor neighborhoods which have a serious dearth of affordable shopping and other amenities. I live on the edge of the "bad part of town". There are almost no banks, but lots of payday loan shops. Oh, and pawn shops too. The grocery stores have limited selection, low quality and high prices. There is a hospital with an ER, but few doctors and dentists. You have to drive way out to the suburbs to find a book (or bicycle!) store. Even Walmart and Target are quite a haul. But there is a jail!

Posted by JonF | July 22, 2007 1:45 AM