5. How does Gan's implicit portrayal of the poor, conflict with popular images of the poor? How, if at all, has his account changed your view of the poor?

I think that Gans has a valid point that not all people who are considered poor are criminals, have babies out of wedlock to receive more welfare, are lazy, or are undeserving. However, there are some that are all or some of those things. Gans almost makes all poor people out to be victims of circumstance, and while that may be the case for some, it certainly isn't for all. For some they have no opportunities, such as being disabled while fighting for this country and are now left out in the cold by our government. Some just lack the motivation to strive for greater things.

This reading has changed my views of the poor a little. I guess that I consider "poor" as someone "poorer" than myself. I wouldn't consider myself well off by any means, but I am not on any kind of government assistance with the exception of the $200/term Pell grant that I receive. I have been guilty of accusing some poor people of being undeserving of assistance, but mainly people I know that have abused the system. Not reporting large amounts of money received for "under the table" work. This takes away from those who REALLY need it. I have also accused immigrants of being undeserving, because I didn't think it was fair that they could just come to this country and start living off of US Citizen's tax dollars. I was not aware of the fact that they must wait 5 years before receiving assistance, so that has definitely changed my view. They must now make an honest attempt for 5 years to make it here.

I also had never thought about the economic function of the undeserving poor, such as job creation. Seems to me like we should be training some of those on assistance to perform some of these created jobs.

The one thing in this essay that definitely changed my views of the poor and actually made me a little angry, is that welfare recipients are subject to many strict and sometimes outrageous rules. "Similarly, welfare recipients may be removed form the rolls if they are found to be living with a man-but the social worker who removes them has every right to cohabit and not lose his or her job. In most states, welfare recipients must observe rules of housecleaning and child care that middle-class people are free to ignore without being punished." [pg. 306] I have never even thought about this one. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you shouldn't have a life and that you are a rotten housekeeper.

In the conclusion of the article the author writes "...the idea of the undeserving poor and the stigmas with which some poor people are thus labeled may persist in part because they are useful in a variety of ways to the people who are not poor." [pg. 310] I wholeheartedly agree with this and this sentence alone changed my views of the poor. Some people are poor because we expect them to be (given their poor background or other stigmas) and until you have walked in one's shoes they shouldn't be judged for their lifestyle.