Why should white middle class americans care what happens to people who live in poverty in inner city slums?

Question

This is a question for a Political science Class so i need some ideas on why ?.....

Answer 1

There are middle class Americans of other races who are also impacted by poverty in inner city slums. Is this a race issue or a class issue?

With that said, the problem relates to everyone because we pay for it. For example, a budget cutback closed the mental health hospital a couple years ago. All the displaced people were literally put on the street with one month supply of whatever medication they were on and a "good luck." Since that time, two people in our community have killed their families. One man killed his mother and a mother killed herself and her children. Either we pay for them to get the services upfront or we pay on the other end of the equation.

Answer 2

Because poverty spreads, and the middle class could easily go down to lower class. All it takes is one family member to lose their job and there they are, in the slums or homeless. Also, for our country to be strong, we need to take care of our own people and make sure that the young have an education. With no educations, this country will go to $hit. Jimis got it right on target.

Answer 3

Well, I'm white. Tell your dumbass teacher the middle class, doesn't exist anymore. That was a psychological scheme to get people to give until it hurts. A hypnotical "taxation without representation" See if he has the balls to tell you what he earns in a year, and show documentation for it, if he doesn't, you know he is one of them. Oh, by the way, I live in poverty, and I'm not in a slum. Why do kids take guns to schools to cap biatch like him, that's a good question, ask him that. If you don't, you're balls will never drop. Peace chicken-laka

Answer 4

Why some might care:

Because we're all Americans and every time we life up a neighbor we strengthen ourselves.

Because we are supposed to be a nation rooted strongly in faith and it would be the moral thing to do.

Because every life has value.

Because we are better humans when we offer a helping hand to those that need it.

Because many white middle class Americans, at least those of us who have grandparents who came over from Europe, were once in the same situation.

Etc., etc.

Answer 5

middle class persons are less likely to be victims of crime when the lower class is treated well and has opportunities and able to live OK without resorting to drugs and crime etc.

drug rehab, job training, rent subsidies, educational scholarships and loans for college, good schools at lower and intermediate and HS levels. sports rpograms, food subsidies, health care, all contribute to an environment in which a parent can raise their children better. Higher minimum wage would REALLY help them to survive and keep families together. birth control and family planning and so forth also are big helps.
All these things can be provided by the governemnt at a cost much lower than the cost of crime, and the losses of crime and the cost of jails and upkeep for prisoners. it costs more to keep a guy in jail than it does to send him to HARVARD, it is all a matter of priorities. It costs a fortune to police and convict and jail a criminal. better to rehab him and train him and use kindness to put him on the path to being a good citizen starting at age ONE.
Pay the mothers to stay home with the kids and to stop having babies.( how to do both? that isa problem that need ideas and work)

Answer 6

Because questions like these justify all the critics of americans. They fuel not just dislike but hatred both from outside the States and within. That leads to Americans dying!

Have you just got blood on your hands?

Answer 7

So it doesn't overflow, driving down realestate value (I'm not racist, but it's known as "the black plague") Inner Cities expand without economic reform. Not to mention crime & drug problems encroaching on the burbs. We need more industry in our cities.

Then again, it is "job security" for certain government agencies?

Answer 8

Simply humanity, the world needs human beings, not self-centered robots, and we need to grow up spiritually by helping others.... to be conscious about the world outside, life is a tricky journey, you never know if you'll be that lucky tomorrow, and what goes around comes around.

Answer 9

For one if we don't care, these inner city kid will cause problem to middle class america. These are the people that will Kill, Rape and rob people. And if middle class america doesn't help them, then the middle class american will get robbed. So basically they should care, and try to help them, so in the future they won't cause any trouble to the other classes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bestcreditrates.net

Answer 10

All Americans regardless of color, should care about those in the US, living below the poverty level, in & out of the cities.

It is everyone's responsibility to lend a hand up, when possible. Many government programs attempt to provide assistance to those in need. Considering the tremendous cost of such programs, most don't succeed in lifting a majority of recipients up, rather maintain a life slightly better/worse than what they had previously.

Many criticize the "Rich" for being greedy and mean, when they don't want to pay more taxes. Critics rarely consider the large/increasing $ amount wealthy people pay in taxes every year. And every year, these programs fail to show significant results. The gov. often wastes, pockets or misuses monies meant to fund social programs. The money is misspent, never getting to those in need and tax payers shouldn't allow it. These programs need to be fixed or replaced.

In addition to taxes...

You can verify this at Truthorfiction.com

Charitable Dick Cheney, media's best-kept secret

JOHN REINIERS

Let Vice President Cheney unload a hail of buckshot - and it makes mainstream media headlines as a defining moment is his failed vice presidency.

Let him file his federal tax return and it is reported by CBS News that "Cheney tops Bush in the battle of the bucks."

Let him donate what was the largest amount of bucks in history to charity by any public servant, and you guessed it � nary a headline.

But then again it was a paltry $6.87 million, more than three-quarters of the reported income of the Cheneys.

Read this again: The Cheneys gave $6.87 million to charity in 2005!< /FONT>

A small story perhaps, but come on�doesn't a multimillion dollar contribution to charities by a vice president deserve special recognition? Frankly, I was astonished when I first read this and thought it was a typo because it was buried in a column that leads off with President Bush's tax return�which wasn't even newsworthy�just the typical annual report on the tax returns of the president and vice president.

As a matter of fact, the AP headline read "Cheney's income 10 times the Bushes." And the L.A. Times reported: "Bush pays taxes, Cheney awaits refund."

I could go on with other headlines, but you get the point. Not one headline in the mainstream media that Cheney gave $6.87 million to charity. The "refund" headline by the L.A. Times is laughable.

The reason he's getting a refund is because he overpaid in estimating his taxes and had too much withheld.

Another paper spun the AP story by saying not only did Cheney make ten times as much as Bush, but "He is looking for a $1.9 million refund." What gall.

Another equally compelling headline would have been when a former vice president's tax return�Al Gore's�reported a paltry $367 in charitable contributions in 1997. Of course this item never made the headlines either�given the bias of the mainstream media.

The Cheney's income was largely the result of his exercising stock options from his stint at Halliburton, some deferred compensation and royalties from three books written by Mrs. Cheney.
Of interest, the AP story referred to Cheney's adjusted gross income as "largely padded" with income he received by exercising stock options that had been set aside for charity. Here's a guy that sets up a gift arrangement for charity with Halliburton when he took office in 2001 and the AP elects to describe his return as being "padded"�this was income earmarked for charity in 2001.

Why the use of such a pejorative term? (Like padding an expense account.)

The Washington Post couldn't resist referring to Halliburton as "a large military contractor in Iraq," as if Iraq had something to do with this story. An d so as to belittle this astounding donation, the Post said "the Cheneys appear to have taken advantage of a special tax break." Hey, anybody who gives three quarters of what they've earned to charity deserves a tax break.

The majority of Americans do not realize how devastatingly effective the media is in shaping attitudes. They can and will destroy the reputations of those they oppose. What is so alarming is that the media mistakes their limitations for high standards.