"Wrong Timing" is often a huge contributor to perpetuating poverty in
America. For example, when it is time to help one's self and prepare for
the future by diligently studying in school (gain the basic knowledge and skills
to become meaningfully employed in the near future), you sluff classes daily for
whatever reasons. The result is the same, poverty is maintained. For an
increasing number of youths, when they are still children they insure their
poverty status by becoming pregnant for whatever reason. The result is the
same, poverty is maintained into the next generation. When government is
supposed to help break the cycle of hopelessness, they cut funding for a better
public education. Maintaining service agencies becomes their primary strategy
against poverty, regardless of the human costs. When there are able bodied
workers to be employed, then there are no jobs available. In my view, helping
at the wrong time does perpetuated poverty.
So . . .Other than John Charity Spring we are all in agreement that
this is the sort of thing we should try?Stop the presses. Put this
on the front page of the Deseret News . . .
The government workers have no incentive to fix the poverty problem. If they
fix the problem, they're out of a job. Those who live in poverty have
every incentive to fix the problem for themselves and for everyone around them.
They want to stop being poor. They want their friends and family to stop being
poor. Their incentive is to stop being poor.Everyone who has a job
has that same incentive. They don't want to be poor. They don't want
creditors breathing down their necks.John Florez is telling us that
letting the poor work along side the government employee, who is "helping
the poor", might be a good way to get the job done.What the
government has done for 80 years has not worked. Trying John's plan
couldn't be any worse than continuing with FDR's and LBJ's and
Obama's failed ideas.
Mike Richards, for once I agree with you. You are right that the way to lift
the poor out of poverty is to get them working. If this idea does that, then it
could be a great idea. In my experience working with the poor as a volunteer,
the issue for poor people usually isn't a lack of desire to work.
It's complicating factors like finding child care that doesn't eat up
all of your pay check, finding housing that doesn't eat up all of your pay
check, finding transportation to your job when you can't afford a car and
public transportation is sporadic and/or unreliable, etc. These are issues that
need to be addressed somehow in the quest to get the poor out of a cycle of
poverty. I always thought there was plenty of government help for these things,
but my eyes have been opened in the past few years. Unless you have family to
help, it's pretty tough.
Once again Florez refuses to hold people accountable for their actions. He
epitomizes the left-wing dogma of placing blame on society, rather than on the
individual where it belongs.Flores is really after more handouts for
those who refuse to provide for themselves. His proposal is no different than
putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Letting welfare recipients to
determine the circumstances under which they are entitled to welfare is
absurdity at its worst.The Founding Fathers believed that a man must
work for his bread, and if he would not work, he would not eat. Florez would
pass out bread to everyone, with no work expected in return. Under his theory,
bread will magically appear, even though everyone is too lazy to make and bake
I agree completely with Mr. Florez. The key factor in ending poverty is jobs.
Hiring the poor to work at jobs that help the poor is an excellent way of
lifting the poor out of poverty.
Ooops . . . wrong button too soon.But this will take some community
organization and that means community organizers.Isn't that
something bad to the minds of some people?
There is probably some real wisdom here.What say we give it a good