« Pelosi visit to Syria | Main | Creation vs. evolution »

April 13, 2007

Poverty and homelessness

Thank you, Bob Savino, for your letter in support of the homeless and poor people (4/9, “Panhandling ordinance”). It appears to me that you are a giving and compassionate person.

I agree that it is unbelievable that the Kansas City Council wants to make it illegal for poor people, and especially the homeless, to stand with a sign asking for money.

I often recall the saying, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Any person can have any number of misfortunes — medical bills, a job loss, an accident, a fire, a disease or disability — that could cause poverty or homelessness.

You are so correct when you say the ordinance is not about public safety but about trying to hide this very real and sad fact of life from the shoppers and other people who may come in contact with those who are much less fortunate.

K. Johnson
Overland Park


Stifled Freedom

Jordan, does all that make you think you have it better than before? Hardly. It means women have serious erroded our rights. This is part of the problem....getting men to put down the remote control and realize that we have a problem. We are losing the only country we have to an enemy within.


Women haven’t realized it, but in many respect they have signed their own death warrants. They have pushed the envelop to where men have more constitutional rights if they kill the woman than they do if they merely divorce her. The same holds true with regards to domestic violence. The man is presumed guilty until proven innocent, during which the woman and her attorney rake him over the coals. Orders of protection mean nothing when women keep pushing to the point where the man feels he has nothing more to lose. At least in prison you get 3-meals a day and medical.

Stifled Freedom

If I tried to say what I just said in an Unfetterred Letter, no newspaper in the country would touch it. They do not want that stated.

Stifled Freedom

Mark K, that's because the law is really not about the welfare of the child. Its about ruining the father....and your elected officials voted for it.

The reason why conservatives and feminists fight against legalized prostitution is because they know women will loose thier last piece of leverage. That is when men will finally realize that there is really no good reason to get married and have kids....and plenty of reasons not to do so.


Yes, the courts seldom take in to account true income, they will use the assumptive laws stating that one has the "ability" to earn more. Ability and what you actually earn are 2 different things. Plus the NCP has to file to get a hearing, that costs at minimum sveral hunderd bucks. Someone making $10-15/Hr, paying taxes, child support and health insurance plus having to also live htemselves, can not afford these legal fees. The courts know this, which is why they purposely implement these tactics.
Everyone argues with me that there are no debtors prisons, I 100% disagree and the proof is in front of us.


The majority of society says just pay up regardless, without question, they refuse to accept the fact that more often than not the following are in occurance:
A) The CP (97% of the time the mother) interferes or debies visitation
B)The CP is not truthful about income
C)The courts do not consider the tax credits the CP receives
D) Combined income formulas are for the CP advantage
E) The NCP MUST hire a lawyer and incur thousands of dollars in legal costs to make ANY motion to the court

The big question is why courts do not allow fathers or NCPs to PROVIDE versus GIVE MONEY?

Mark K

KenLewis- After they got him knocked down to $10 an hour, they kept arresting him for back child support at random. This was after they destroyed his ability to pay the court-ordered $1000 a month.

Stifled Freedom

These child support laws that take someone's professional or driver's license away are a bunch of BS. Its totally counter intuititive. What good is it if it renders the father unable to work and pay? This is certainly not in the kid's best interest. This was another feminist rammed law that was simply just anti-male, anti-father. Who in heck voted for this?

You know, you can get a judgement in court and garnish someone's wages and still get the money necessary to take care of the kid.


Sophie will hate it because it is not a "single mom" sniveling about how hard she has it and whining about beng in poverty. Instead it is about a guy down on his luck, but refuses to let hurdles get in his way.
I liked the part where they went to a shelter and the lady denied him because he was male wiht child. Sure, the system is fair to men. This movie and story is in my Top 10 of all time. Really pathetic his wife left him STRICTLY because of money. More often than not this story would not end up this way. Normally the woman would run down to DCSE and Family Court and tell them that "Will" was making $100,000 a year selling medical equipment, then arbitrarily give her a reward of $4000 a month, then arrest Will when he could not pay it because he doesn't really make that much.
This story is one in a hundred thousand.
All you "single mom" victimized types, need to watch it and learn. While Will was pusuing wealth, he was quote happy finding dinosaurs in the subway with his son, very little to their name. True happyness!
Happyness is NOT opening debtors prisons and using the system for spite and vindication.
Stop blaming dad for YOUR short comings and poor finance skills.


Don't worry, I'm sure Sophie hates it. Will Smith's son in his first movie is a fascist.

Mark K

Junglejack- I look forward to seeing that movie. I've seen the previews and read about the plot. It looks like a great movie. I'm surprised the media hasn't bashed it for demanding too much of people.


That should be "Pursuit of Happyness"... it's still a little early, I guess.


Marky Mark - Great story! I didn't mean to imply that some well-meaning people couldn't find themselves in dire straights - but that, like you said: "Those who are willing and motivated will always pull themselves back out of poverty."

Joe Skid, sleeping in a puddle of his own drunken excess is not attempting to make his situation better - there's a difference.

If you haven'e seen it, I highly reccommend the movie "Puruit of Happyness". It deals with this subject in a very real, and inspiring manner.

Mark K

My roommate was homeless for exactly one day. It was the day he started his job with my company. (the one I work for, not own) He was terminated from his old, good-paying job because the state took his driver's license because of child support owed. Because of this, he had to take a job at half the pay, and the state garnished half his wages, bringing his check from a $10 an hour job as a laborer to $178 a week. In spite of this, he was able to rent a room from an old woman. This was from an ad in the paper. After I got to know him for a couple of weeks, I rented him a room in my apartment, which for him was preferable to living with an 80-year old woman. Homelessness is caused by people's actions, not their unfortunate circumstances. Those who are willing and motivated will always pull themselves back out of poverty.


sheeple see a drug addicted derilict annoying passersby for the money to afford his next hit, and see someone who's "unfortunate" and not the victim of his own set of actions and decisions.

Sophie Demartine

Sheeple don't want to see the poor, they're afraid of the poor, just like they're afraid of non-white non-christian people. Sheeple are why Hitler and Bush came to power, sheeple prefer fascism as long as they're the ones holding the clubs.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright