Question 1:
So far, the tone that the author uses in the
first 97 pages of the book seems as though he is stressing the fact that
poverty is something that can be prevented. We as a society are part to blame
and the government is the other responsible party to blame. Abramsky presents
the facts in a way that highlights both the positive and negative things being
done by the government to combat the effects of poverty but always seems to end
with a tone that suggests more can be done. This book thus far has been
extremely informative and I like the way Abramsky presents the facts even
though his tone suggests there may be some bias in the way he writes. However,
I do not think that he is wrong for presenting the facts in such a manner.
Question 3:
On page
22, there is a passage in which Michael Steinman is talking about his students
and their stories of poverty they compiled for a video project. One of the
students, Oliver Lopez describes his family’s struggles and how he feels as
though he does nothing for the family while his father is out working two jobs
just to make ends meet. This particular story struck me because this 18 year
old feels as though going to school is not enough and he has a sense of guilt.
I thought about my own life with this passage. When I was 18 my life consisted
of going to school, playing volleyball, and working a few hours during the week
and on weekends to save money for college. I worked because I wanted too, not
because I was forced too or because I had to help my family make ends meet. I
think more people need to hear stories like Oliver’s to really appreciate what
they have in their own lives.
Question 6:
Abramsky
states the statistic on page 45 that in 1996, just before the welfare reform,
4.43 million families across the nation were on Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), which was the main welfare program for families in deep
poverty. Then in 2010, almost two years into the economic crisis that created
the worst economic environment since the Great Depressoin, only 1.86 million
families were on the successor program to AFDC. It was around this time that
the shift in attitudes about welfare changed. Political figures are part to
blame for this change in attitude because they have publicly implied that those
accessing food stamps to avoid malnutrition and hunger were taking advantage of
the opportunity and did not want to better themselves. These political figures
implied that people on food stamps were comfortable living this way and had no
desire to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment