In ch.22 on pg.

331-332 it talks about how other groups have been

more dependent on government assistance than those who receive welfare
benefits yet are not condemned by larger society. It named things like loan
firms, veterans, and elderly who receive social security. The book was
published in 2008 so it didnt mention how we have also now bailed out
banks and have given countless tax breaks to large corporations as well,
neither of which have been condemned by mainstream society either.
I wonder why within mainstream society we are so against giving those
in poverty effective financial assistance or financial breaks yet so quick and
willing to do so for those who have more than enough funds to flourish? It is
one thing to say that banks and corporations had the funds to influence
policy which pushed for the government to help them, but it doesnt make
sense why other workers condemn those in poverty. Can it be that the
hegemony that has occurred over generations of the narrative of cultural
deficit of the poor has been that ingrained in American society that we
cannot see past it?
In the reading the book also stated that poverty is an economic
problem not a cultural problem. It also stated that officials avoid grappling
with the difficult structural problems that are at the root causes of
contemporary urban poverty. I find this confusing since if we look at things
financially it would be cheaper to address the structural root problems than it
would be to continue on as we have been. This is confusing because if the

status quo of pro-corporate legislation, union busting and lack of services

funding (like welfare and financial assistance programs) isnt creating
financial benefits and is actually doing the polar opposite then what are the
pros of the status quo to those in power, specifically government officials?
Could it be that they benefit more by keeping those who are in poverty, in
poverty? Why else would they not be working towards policy that would
alleviate the financial costs that come with poverty?