>If the solution were as simple as getting a bus ticket out of town, don't you think more people would do that? (Hint: it's not that simple.)
Yes, the solution is really that simple. Why don't they do it? Moving sucks. You only move when you have to. Note here I don't have a problem with it. Move or not move, that's up to them.
>The evidence shows that poor people spend less on entertainment than rich people.
Well, good. Poor people should spend less money on entertainment. They're poor. The question isn't whether they spend more or less money on entertainment; the question is whether or not it's reasonable to expect people to cough up $24 for a Greyhound bus ticket to Chicago. In California twenty four bucks buys about half a carton of cigs.
>Have you ever been to a rich neighborhood? Every other shop is a Starbucks or Gucci. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity. (This statement, like yours, is a non-sequitir.
No, mine was not a non sequitur. We were talking about poor people. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Some kind of free association?
>I think what you are trying to get at is basically, "poor people are already disproportionately affected by addiction, so we should take away social services (i.e., where your taxes dollars go) that help them escape said addiction."
I suggest you reread the thread here, since there's no way you could have gotten that impression by reading what I actually wrote.
Nobody is trapped in Detroit. As a taxpayer I have no obligation to shower money on the city in an effort to make it a nice place. The people who live there have two options - either they can make it a nice place through their own efforts or they can go somewhere else. If they're waiting for the rest of us to pick up the tab, well, they can keep waiting.