rickyp wrote:If the American dream is the ability to rise out of poverty to a middle class or better life, then its the practices of nations where the effects of poverty do not include being cemented into poverty are the models...

If anyone is "cemented into poverty" in the US, it is those who refuse to work hard because the government offers food, clothing, and housing for nothing.

If you were to sojourn to our housing projects, you would find them filled with many who have been there a full generation or more. You would find attitudes of hopelessness instead of determination.

Our "War on Poverty" has been an abject failure. It's not for lack of spending; it is because our programs are aimed at the symptoms and not the disease.

fate

Our "War on Poverty" has been an abject failure. It's not for lack of spending; it is because our programs are aimed at the symptoms and not the disease

If the war on poverty is going better in Norway, Sweden and Denmark ...
Would it be useful adopting some of their methods?

rickyp wrote:fate

Our "War on Poverty" has been an abject failure. It's not for lack of spending; it is because our programs are aimed at the symptoms and not the disease

If the war on poverty is going better in Norway, Sweden and Denmark ...
Would it be useful adopting some of their methods?

Only if ours is completely scrapped first. But, you miss the mark on so many issues. We are not Norway, Sweden or Denmark. They have a different history, culture, and world position. Those countries . . . what percentage of their GDP is spent on defense? Denmark spends less than 1/3 of what the US does. I suspect Norway and Sweden are not appreciably different.

No one wants to live in a world wherein the US becomes exactly like Scandinavia.

RJ, apparently deep down there is a Republican in me trying to get out...

Well, if you're talking about projects you are basically talking about African-American poverty. And blaming that on government intervention instead off on the lingering effects of slavery, discrimination and segregation on a culture is, well, questionable.

freeman3 wrote:Well, if you're talking about projects you are basically talking about African-American poverty. And blaming that on government intervention instead off on the lingering effects of slavery, discrimination and segregation on a culture is, well, questionable.

Make the case. Feel free to start in Watts. Here, I'll help.

A few interesting factoids:

Families

The percentages of never married males, widowed males and never married females are among the county's highest.

There are 2,816 families headed by single parents. The rate is 38.9%, high for the city of Los Angeles and high for the county

Oh snap:

Ancestry and immigration

Mexican (46.7%) and Unspecified African (1.4%) are the most common ancestries.

12,500 (34.0%) of residents are foreign born, about average for the city of Los Angeles and about average for the county. Mexico (79.8%) and El Salvador (9.2%) are the most common foreign places of birth.

Slavery? A lot of folks have seemed to overcome that.

In a world of President Obama, General Powell, Secretary Rice, etc. you might suppose that some of your reasoning would have become out of fashion.

DF - I'm not an urban planner, but I have been involved in planning, and from my UK experience that is not what our 'liberal' planners think at all. Mixed developments (as in a mixture of social, private rent and owner-occupier), more houses than flats, near to and ideally integrated with local facilities, not wholly reliant on cars as transport... These are the modern considerations. In the 60s and 70s, perhaps your view of it prevailed (and the res ults are still here) but not everywhere. It is how the developments around my hone town were planned for decades.

Rather than just bringing out the partisan political caricatures, could you show us examples of how this view you acsribe to current 'liberal' urban planners can be evidenced?

fate

No one wants to live in a world where in the US becomes exactly like Scandinavia

Although the Swedes spend less on defence, they also spend considerably less on health care than the US. 10% versus 17% of GDP... Despite providing universal health care..
A system that delivers security to poor and working poor - allowing greater mobility between jobs at the same time ...

I believe that most of your poor and working poor would be thrilled to make the switch.Because not only would their lives be a little easier but the chances for their children to better themselves would increase greatly.

And the point fate, is to adopt the system that best delivers an improved solution to ingrained poverty and limited social mobility.

freeman3 wrote:RJ, apparently deep down there is a Republican in me trying to get out...

You are certainly open minded and rational enough to realize that all sides of an issue have important perspectives, and that no one side has a monopoly on reality and praxis.

freeman3 wrote:Well, if you're talking about projects you are basically talking about African-American poverty. And blaming that on government intervention instead off on the lingering effects of slavery, discrimination and segregation on a culture is, well, questionable.

It's certainly not a legacy that Scandinavia has to cope with. At issue is still the best way forward.

danivon wrote:DF - I'm not an urban planner, but I have been involved in planning, and from my UK experience that is not what our 'liberal' planners think at all. Mixed developments (as in a mixture of social, private rent and owner-occupier), more houses than flats, near to and ideally integrated with local facilities, not wholly reliant on cars as transport... These are the modern considerations. In the 60s and 70s, perhaps your view of it prevailed (and the res ults are still here) but not everywhere. It is how the developments around my hone town were planned for decades.

Rather than just bringing out the partisan political caricatures, could you show us examples of how this view you acsribe to current 'liberal' urban planners can be evidenced?

Who favors higher energy prices? Why?

Who worries about "urbanization?" Why?

Who wants more government intervention in housing? For example, we, in MA, have government-sponsored housing for "moderate" incomes. Why?

Even what you say concerning "not wholly reliant on cars as transport" can be translated as, "Using more public transportation," which can only happen with . . . population concentration.

rickyp wrote:fate

No one wants to live in a world where in the US becomes exactly like Scandinavia

Although the Swedes spend less on defence, they also spend considerably less on health care than the US. 10% versus 17% of GDP... Despite providing universal health care..
A system that delivers security to poor and working poor - allowing greater mobility between jobs at the same time ...

So what about medical expenses? Blame Obama--it's his plan.

As for "greater mobility," the problem is the studies you cite have a built-in definition and an objective that is predetermined. Look, it's easier to move from 1 to 3 than from 1 to 10. In some countries, 10 is not an option. In the US, you can go as far as your work ethic and talent permit. Period.

I believe that most of your poor and working poor would be thrilled to make the switch.Because not only would their lives be a little easier but the chances for their children to better themselves would increase greatly.

Then we should see a massive number of applications to move to those countries.

Again, if you want to whine about healthcare AGAIN, write President Obama and Harry Reid. They could have done anything they wanted--and they did this.

And the point fate, is to adopt the system that best delivers an improved solution to ingrained poverty and limited social mobility.

Well then, get rid of teachers' unions, public housing and welfare-for-life and you'll be off to a fine start.

Doctor Fate wrote:Who favors higher energy prices? Why?

Are you talking about 'liberals' or urban planners here? Find me evidence that urban planners are conspiring to increase prices and I'll listen

Who worries about "urbanization?" Why?

You do, it seems, if you don't like concentrated populations.

Who wants more government intervention in housing? For example, we, in MA, have government-sponsored housing for "moderate" incomes. Why?

And what's wrong with that? Public housing was not just for the poor when I grew up either. It was paid for by the tenants through rents in general - the government made the initial outlay but the income repaid the debt and interest over about the same period as the average mortgage. It meant that social housing was not seen as being for just poor people, and it meant that areas with social housing had people who were in working families, giving a better social mixture and a lower tendency towards reverting to a slum.

By making social housing concentrated, and aimed only at the poor, you wonder how ghettos of poverty, worklessness and crime arise?

Even what you say concerning "not wholly reliant on cars as transport" can be translated as, "Using more public transportation," which can only happen with . . . population concentration.

Good public transport does not mean you have to have concentrated populations. it may help make it more efficient, but it could just as easily lead to a clogged system. Suburban areas can work really well with a mixture of public transport networks, infrastructure for cars and decent interchanges. Indeed, if more people use public transport it frees up the roads for other users.

Even then there are alternatives to cars and public transport out there. The main ones are perfectly suited to an individualist - "walking" and "cycling".

Anyway, still all you are offering is your own view of what other people think. How about you show me how they think be providing evidence, instead of your own prejudice?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Who favors higher energy prices? Why?

Are you talking about 'liberals' or urban planners here?

Like with public school teachers, I think you'll find the conservative/liberal tilt quite notable. There may be a conservative urban planner in Alaska or Texas, but probably not anywhere else.

Find me evidence that urban planners are conspiring to increase prices and I'll listen

No, you're quite right. That's the President and liberals who want to do that. Coincidentally, they happen to think we should drive less, live closer to work, and stack ourselves on top of each other.

Who worries about "urbanization?" Why?

You do, it seems, if you don't like concentrated populations.

Not me. I don't think it's government's job to tell people where to live or how to live. I happen to believe in freedom, which is a foreign concept to the American Left.

Who wants more government intervention in housing? For example, we, in MA, have government-sponsored housing for "moderate" incomes. Why?

And what's wrong with that? Public housing was not just for the poor when I grew up either. It was paid for by the tenants through rents in general - the government made the initial outlay but the income repaid the debt and interest over about the same period as the average mortgage. It meant that social housing was not seen as being for just poor people, and it meant that areas with social housing had people who were in working families, giving a better social mixture and a lower tendency towards reverting to a slum.

Perfect illustration: I want less government. You want more.

By making social housing concentrated, and aimed only at the poor, you wonder how ghettos of poverty, worklessness and crime arise?

Nope. I think it's a government problem.

Even then there are alternatives to cars and public transport out there. The main ones are perfectly suited to an individualist - "walking" and "cycling".

Sure. Try that in a place in which there is snow and ice half the year.

Anyway, still all you are offering is your own view of what other people think. How about you show me how they think be providing evidence, instead of your own prejudice?

To which you respond with your own prejudice. I'd say that's even.

Interesting that two of the three Black Americans you named clearly do not meet the criteria of black Anericans breaking out of the cycle of inner-city poverty (Obama the child of a white mother and an educated Kenyan father while Colin Powell was the son of Jamaican immigrants) And Rice certainly did not come from an inner-city background (more like from the black elite) and it is also interesting to note that her ethnic background is 40 percent white, presumably also meaning that her cultural influences were not the same as the average black kid.
Breaking the cycle of poverty originally created by discrimination is extraordinarily hard. I think government's attempt to help black Americans out of poverty have on whole have been beneficiał. Is there an argument to be made that government programs have created a cycle of dependency? Sure. But I doubt very much that without government programs you would see less black poverty
--in fact the opposite is true. Moving forward the only way to decrease black poverty is to increase black educational achievement.