Good Read and some should take note.

[sly_wolf 199]

Nicholas D. Kristof:

When I’ve written recently about food stamp recipients, the uninsured and prison inmates, I’ve had plenty of pushback from readers.

A reader named Keith reflected a coruscating chorus when he protested: “If kids are going hungry, it is because of the parents not upholding their responsibilities.”

A reader in Washington bluntly suggested taking children from parents and putting them in orphanages.

Jim asked: “Why should I have to subsidize someone else’s child? How about personal responsibility? If you procreate, you provide.”

After a recent column about an uninsured man who delayed seeing a doctor about a condition that turned out to be colon cancer, many readers noted that he is a lifelong smoker and said he had it coming.

“What kind of a lame brain doofus is this guy?” one reader asked. “And like it’s our fault that he couldn’t afford to have himself checked out?”

Such scorn seems widespread, based on the comments I get on my blog and Facebook page — as well as on polling and on government policy. At root, these attitudes reflect a profound lack of empathy.

A Princeton University psychology professor, Susan Fiske, has found that when research subjects hooked up to neuro-imaging machines look at photos of the poor and homeless, their brains often react as if they are seeing things, not people. Her analysis suggests that Americans sometimes react to poverty not with sympathy but with revulsion.

So, on Thanksgiving, maybe we need a conversation about empathy for fellow humans in distress.

Let’s acknowledge one point made by these modern social Darwinists: It’s true that some people in poverty do suffer in part because of irresponsible behavior, from abuse of narcotics to criminality to laziness at school or jobs. But remember also that many of today’s poor are small children who have done nothing wrong.

Some 45 percent of food stamp recipients are children, for example. Do we really think that kids should go hungry if they have criminal parents? Should a little boy not get a curved spine treated properly because his dad is a deadbeat? Should a girl not be able to go to preschool because her mom is an alcoholic?

Successful people tend to see in themselves a simple narrative: You study hard, work long hours, obey the law and create your own good fortune. Well, yes. That often works fine in middle-class families.

But if you’re conceived by a teenage mom who drinks during pregnancy so that you’re born with fetal alcohol effects, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you from before birth. You’ll perhaps never get traction.

Likewise, if you’re born in a high-poverty neighborhood to a stressed-out single mom who doesn’t read to you and slaps you more than hugs you, you’ll face a huge handicap. One University of Minnesota study found that the kind of parenting a child receives in the first 3.5 years is a better predictor of high school graduation than I.Q.

All this helps explain why one of the strongest determinants of ending up poor is being born poor. As Warren Buffett puts it, our life outcomes often depend on the “ovarian lottery.” Sure, some people transcend their circumstances, but it’s callous for those born on second or third base to denounce the poor for failing to hit home runs.

John Rawls, the brilliant 20th-century philosopher, argued for a society that seems fair if we consider it from behind a “veil of ignorance” — meaning we don’t know whether we’ll be born to an investment banker or a teenage mom, in a leafy suburb or a gang-ridden inner city, healthy or disabled, smart or struggling, privileged or disadvantaged. That’s a shrewd analytical tool — and who among us would argue for food stamp cuts if we thought we might be among the hungry children?

As we celebrate Thanksgiving, let’s remember that the difference between being surrounded by a loving family or being homeless on the street is determined not just by our own level of virtue or self-discipline, but also by an inextricable mix of luck, biography, brain chemistry and genetics.

For those who are well-off, it may be easier to castigate the irresponsibility of the poor than to recognize that success in life is a reflection not only of enterprise and willpower, but also of random chance and early upbringing.

Low-income Americans, who actually encounter the needy in daily life, understand this complexity and respond with empathy. Researchers say that’s why the poorest 20 percent of Americans donate more to charity, as a fraction of their incomes, than the richest 20 percent. Meet those who need help, especially children, and you become less judgmental and more compassionate.

And compassion isn’t a sign of weakness, but a mark of civilization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/kristof-where-is-the-love.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=1&

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think any minds are going to change after reading this. They will just call you a vacuous liberal and move on.

Still, it is Thanksgiving, so why not try? At least it's a positive message

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

I find is amusing that people who can't figure out how to take care of themselves can't figure out how not to torture a child with less than adequate living circumstances. And that those same people choose to put child after child though the same sub standard living situation. It is no wonder the lower income class grows at roughly the same rate as breeding rats. .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think that's 'amusing' is the word one should use in a sentence that includes a reference to torturing children.

Poverty is a real issue and people in those situations are real people. They shouldn't be dehumanised en-masse by referring to them as 'breeding rats'

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

I am not a fan of the current welfare system, I think it should be trashed for an approach where working is a mandatory part of getting help and that there is a per family cap on benefits at the level for a family of 3, more children should not equate to more money, Most of the poor people that do well come from families that work as many hours and jobs as needed to get there and don't look to hand outs. I also believe in a 5 year lifetime per person cap on benefits.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fair enough.

[Peikko 1,575]

People chase after the poor as if they are the reason for high taxes. You do realise that if you were to make these changes you wouldn't even notice the savings in your tax bill and yet you are quire prepared to change the system from one that is simple to administer and universal for one that would be more complicated and expensive to administer and that seeks to punish specific types of behaviour that you have determined as untenable?

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

I was brought up in in a house with an annual income of under $2000. ( that is not a typo) We grew food we bartered we fixed we mended. and re used. Never took welfare. Of the others that grew up with me the families that did what they must raised kids that are thriving and doing well. Those that used the welfare system raised uninspired people that continued the pattern and became multi generational dependents of free money. The theory is that is break a cycle the reality is the opposite. Time to throw the system away. Scrap the system and the cost of it go away. A bad turn on an investment property will affect my taxes more than welfare, I am just against supporting a system that does not improve the quality of life for the people that it serves. All the system does is make those that thing the world should be all fuzzy and feel good think life is beautiful. Personally take my welfare money and send it to a third world country to establish road/ electrical/water/ schools Let it be spent where it really works

[Dakine10 5,452]

Low-income Americans, who actually encounter the needy in daily life, understand this complexity and respond with empathy

Apparently not all of them do.

[Peikko 1,575]

I was brought up in in a house with an annual income of under $2000. ( that is not a typo) We grew food we bartered we fixed we mended. and re used. Never took welfare. Of the others that grew up with me the families that did what they must raised kids that are thriving and doing well. Those that used the welfare system raised uninspired people that continued the pattern and became multi generational dependents of free money. The theory is that is break a cycle the reality is the opposite. Time to throw the system away. Scrap the system and the cost of it go away. A bad turn on an investment property will affect my taxes more than welfare, I am just against supporting a system that does not improve the quality of life for the people that it serves. All the system does is make those that thing the world should be all fuzzy and feel good think life is beautiful. Personally take my welfare money and send it to a third world country to establish road/ electrical/water/ schools Let it be spent where it really works

Rather than throwing away a system that does work and is inexpensive to administer, put policies in place to kick start these particular welfare recipients who struggle to get their feet on the ladder to financial independence. If we know that the long term unemployed are essentially unemployable (we do know this, even 6 months unemployed reduces your chance of getting rehired drastically) then simply removing their benefits is not going to magically make these people go away. It is easy to look at the statistics and get emotionally involved in feeling that some people are 'undeserving' but that doesn't make them change or disappear. They are a part of our society and unless you want to change the tenor of our society to one that punishes and casts out people who have difficulty making self improving life choices then we are stuck with them like it or not. Our best bet is to work with them to find a solution not punish them so they end up filling our jails.

[Peikko 1,575]

Incidentally, we also know that there are not enough jobs currently in the US to employ everyone who should be in employment, so I am not quite sure how you square that particular circle.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Nature culls the weak and those that can not thrive and the species improves. Man tries to do the opposite. They try to incorporate the weak and defective and lower the standards to that of the east capable. It is the core of the downfall of America. It has eroded every system , work , education, health, government.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

As far as not enough jobs, are you aware of how most of the national parks were created ? The government took unemployed , sent them to the middle of no where and stuck a shovel in their hand and you ended up with parks that survive to this day. Hire the unemployed to round up the illegals and then start massive deportations kill 2 problems at once

[Peikko 1,575]

Nature culls the weak and those that can not thrive and the species improves. Man tries to do the opposite. They try to incorporate the weak and defective and lower the standards to that of the east capable. It is the core of the downfall of America. It has eroded every system , work , education, health, government.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 'weak' should be culled? You are actually putting forward the idea that America would be a better place to live if we allowed the chronic poor to die in our streets? Is that your solution?

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

As far as not enough jobs, are you aware of how most of the national parks were created ? The government took unemployed , sent them to the middle of no where and stuck a shovel in their hand and you ended up with parks that survive to this day. Hire the unemployed to round up the illegals and then start massive deportations kill 2 problems at once

Government jobs is the solution to the unemployment shortage?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nature culls the weak and those that can not thrive and the species improves. Man tries to do the opposite. They try to incorporate the weak and defective and lower the standards to that of the east capable. It is the core of the downfall of America. It has eroded every system , work , education, health, government.

That's a post worthy of Hitler's 3rd Reich. Seriously.