Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on July 16, 2012, 03:50:35 PM
-
Who'd a thunk it?
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/07/choices_matter_in_avoiding_pov.html
Yesterday the [NY]Times ran a huge news article (more than two full pages), "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do,'' on the economic and social plight of single mothers in a society marked by rising income inequality.
Coverage of the facts, by the knowledgeable reporter Jason DeParle, is solid. The problem is that single mothers are presented as victims of a tsunami of inequality that has little or nothing to do with their own behavior. The language is passive. Two-income families are presented as a sort of unfair advantage that descends on some married women more often than on single ones. One featured woman had "a troubled relationship that left her with three children..." and "marriage and its rewards (are) evermore confined to the fortunate classes." Who does this confining? We never learn.
"Ron Haskins, co-author of the Brookings study, which looked at Census Bureau data on a sample of Americans, wrote that the analysis found that young adults who finished high school, worked full time and got married after age 21 and before having kids "had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class."
Yeah, flashes of the obvious, but...see my sig.
Also, Charles Murray's latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010.
I look forward to the next NYT story indicating that there is some hard-to-define link between extramarital sex and children born out of wedlock. Expect to hear a line like, "...sexual continence and its rewards (are) evermore confined to the fortunate classes."
-
Wait,what?
So are you saying that allof theTV shows that depict a 20-something single mother with an executive level job and a glamorous social life are mostly...fiction?
-
As a white community college teacher in Detroit, I often have to hold my tongue. A lot of inner city people know perfectly well where the problems lie -- but they don't want to hear it coming from a white face. When someone brings up the topic, I just zip my lips and gesture them to continue the discussion without me.
I can, however recommend Walter Williams' writings, especially this one found at http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/05/how-not-to-be-poor/ and other websites.
Thomas Sowell and Starr Parker are also popular as sources of extra credit readings,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp
http://www.urbancure.org/
-
Everyone talks about single mothers; nobody seems to care about single fathers. As expected, I guess.
-
Everyone talks about single mothers; nobody seems to care about single fathers. As expected, I guess.
It's all part of a sexist plot.
Men have this unfair advantage that they don't get pregnant. =(
-
Psssh. Haven't you been listening to our elected leader at all? Some people just get unlucky in life. They weren’t born into fortunate situations; that's all. Should we penalize them and condemn them to life of misery because of their poor luck? It's like the people on the other side of the spectrum - some people get lucky. Some people own businesses; and it's not just because they worked hard and made sacrifices - they just got lucky. They won the lottery of life, and they should help those that didn't. It's the fair thing to do!
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more…
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
-
OK, this is total thread drift, but it bugs the crap out of me. How does one say that the "government" or al gore "created" the internet?
I was always under the impression that a bunch of geeky types from MIT and such "created" the internet. Sure, they got some .gov funding, but the freeking polititions and their lackys wern't the ones writting code and fiddling with circuits.
"created" this word, I think they not know what it means.
And that's my mini rant of the day. Carry on with your regularly scheduled programing...
-
I believe it was an outgrowth of ARPANET, which was a multi-university networking project funded by DARPA.
-
I believe it was an outgrowth of ARPANET, which was a multi-university networking project funded by DARPA.
"funded" is still not the same as "created". and, from what I remember from Hackers (the nonfiction book, not the angilina jolie movie) and a brief scan of the wiki article about the history of the internet, that's just part of it.
-
I don't think we need to deny that government had a hand in creating (or at least funding) the technology used for the internet. As a DoD project, it may even have been constitutional.
But the government only laid some groundwork. It was the private sector that built the eBays and Wikipedias and Twitters, not to mention the old-media web sites. Even if someone points to the role of public universities, there are private universities, too.
-
Not particularly interested in seeing this turn into a single mother bashing thread. *expletive deleted*it happens. Not all single mothers get there by squirting out a bunch of kids super young and quitting high school.
Be mindful of that in this discussion, please.
-
Not particularly interested in seeing this turn into a single mother bashing thread. *expletive deleted* happens. Not all single mothers get there by squirting out a bunch of kids super young and quitting high school.
Be mindful of that in this discussion, please.
There's always a guy involved, too ;)
-
The premise of this is silly - choosing abstinence is not going to make people who've grown up abused, malnourished, and raised by parents with no skills into successful middle class employees.
The reasons for the lack of economic success in these cases are the same as the reasons why they don't form stable relationships - never had the skills to do so in the first place, but I guess if we all repeat the mantra "they chose it!" that will make all of the other factors irrelevant.
Inevitably, the high levels of malnourishment and abuse get shouted down with stories of "my cousin zeke ate motor oil his first two years and now he's on wall street!". Nevermind the science.
Poverty and broken families have nothing to do with abstinence or even birth control.
-
Poverty and broken families have nothing to do with abstinence or even birth control.
Study after study after study after study have shown that delaying having children until marriage IMPROVE the child's chances of NOT ending up in poverty. No, it doesn't make it certain, but following the three norms (Finish HS, Work Full time, and wait until 21 to get married and have kids) dramatically improves the odds.
-
The premise of this is silly - choosing abstinence is not going to make people who've grown up abused, malnourished, and raised by parents with no skills into successful middle class employees.
Then it's a good thing that's not the premise.
-
Study after study after study after study have shown that delaying having children until marriage IMPROVE the child's chances of NOT ending up in poverty. No, it doesn't make it certain, but following the three norms (Finish HS, Work Full time, and wait until 21 to get married and have kids) dramatically improves the odds.
That is a correlation - the reason why people delay children is that they're mostly getting educated, advancing their careers, and planning for a future family. Those are skills they have because they were properly reared and educated. Those skills are what improve the odds, not tqhe date on which their kids were born, because those skills are what make people employable and successful.
Having no skills and a relatively underdeveloped brain due to malnutrition will limit employment and income potential regardless of family choices.
That's why some single moms are executives, and some two parent families live in cycles of homelessness.
-
Ahhh, I see, so it's all about malnutrition....
Good thing Mrs. Obama is a strong proponent of getting in shape and the expanding (now with record numbers of people) the Food Stamp/EBT/SNAP programs.
FTR, the good old USofA has the fattest poor people in the world.
;/ ;/
-
What a surprise - irresponsible children who have children, have irresponsible children who have children ...
[popcorn]
-
What a surprise - irresponsible children who have children, have irresponsible children who have children ...
[popcorn]
A cycle supported by the welfare state.
DS:
Would you consider processed foods, high sodium, sugar to be contributors to malnourishment?
-
A cycle supported by the welfare state.
DS:
Would you consider processed foods, high sodium, sugar to be contributors to malnourishment?
Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(
-
Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(
There are those who actually consider it humane to hook the poor on welfare, and then allow them to make those bad choices. In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.
-
There are those who actually consider it humane to hook the poor on welfare, and then allow them to make those bad choices. In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.
True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?
-
In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.
Its not easy to borrow a cookbook from the library or download recipes from the internetz, or switch the channel from jerry springer to the food channel to learn how to cook a vegetable or serve a fruit. With all the lack of free time, its much easier to go to McD's than it is to learn even the most basic of skills.
-
True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?
A whole family would be better nourished for an entire day eating beans and rice, a multivitamin and a few apples that can be bought for less than the cost of a single extra value meal.
-
I raised three kids with little help from their father, my family, the gov, etc. Three kids, same home, same rules, etc. Daughter is conservative (mostly), in school on her own dime, and has made intelligent choices. Two sons, neither in school, neither making choices I would prefer they make, but both working and living on their own. So far, no grandkids or marriages or addictions or abuse, or any other serious issues have arisen. Twins are 22, youngest is 20 - and he's struggling and giving me fits right now, but nothing a little "mom" in his face won't fix.
Yeah, it would have been a lot easier if I'd been able to stay married, finish my degree, had a normal family support systems, etc. But I really believe it comes down to the individual. Everyone has choices and how they react to the consequences of those choices is the deciding factor.
-
Its not easy to borrow a cookbook from the library or download recipes from the internetz, or switch the channel from jerry springer to the food channel to learn how to cook a vegetable or serve a fruit. With all the lack of free time, its much easier to go to McD's than it is to learn even the most basic of skills.
Sloth is something that I suspect can be hard to unlearn.
-
The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.
Of course it didn't, Moron. Al Gore invented it. He told us so himself.
-
Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(
Yeah. 'Cause warning people of the consequences of bad choices is condemnation.
Wait, no it's actually called "caring." As opposed to not caring, in which you just give up and tell them they can't do anything to help themselves.
-
True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?
More realistic than you might think. For instance...
I have never donated junk food to POBLO (http://www.peopleofthebooklutheranoutreach.org/WP/). The junkiest was a 50lb bag of brown rice and 2 gallons of olive oil. Also, POBLO buys real food with the cash they get for that purpose. I've seen their pantry and delivered same to recipients.
Yeah. 'Cause warning people of the consequences of bad choices is condemnation.
Wait, no it's actually called "caring." As opposed to not caring, in which you just give up and tell them they can't do anything to help themselves.
Would that we had more such "condemnation" and that most charity was delivered by folks who took the stewardship of the funds & goods they disperse to be a moral issue.
-
More realistic than you might think. For instance...
I have never donated junk food to POBLO (http://www.peopleofthebooklutheranoutreach.org/WP/). The junkiest was a 50lb bag of brown rice and 2 gallons of olive oil. Also, POBLO buys real food with the cash they get for that purpose.
And obviously POBLO isn't addressing everyone's eating needs - neither are all other charities combined.
What evidence is there that charities could pick up the slack fleet from ending government assistance?
-
And obviously POBLO isn't addressing everyone's eating needs - neither are all other charities combined.
What evidence is there that charities could pick up the slack fleet from ending government assistance?
Because private charity did a pretty decent job of it before gov't shouldered them aside and increased the tax burden to do so. Also because private charity is much more efficient with its funds and better at discovering the incorrigible.
Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the needy.
-
Because private charity did a pretty decent job of it before gov't shouldered them aside and increased the tax burden to do so. Also because private charity is much more efficient with its funds and better at discovering the incorrigible.
Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the needy.
When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?
Removing the tax burden doesn't ensure that resources will go to feeding people. If there's some evidence that in this culture, it would, I'd like to see it.
-
[Raises hand] Shouldn't we first decide whether government should feed the poor, before we discuss how good of a job they do?
-
When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?
Is this some sort of criteria by which we choose whether or not it is better to feed poor people through private charity or government largesse? Do you have suggestions as to where to go to conduct the research necessary to find out?
Perhaps we should just keep on throwing tax $$$ at the problem, after all we're only approaching 16 trillion dollars in debt, and it's the major entitlements that are driving the debt....since our idiot politicians don't seem to want to do anything about the major spending, one might think they'd atleast want to tackle some of the lesser spending.... except they don't...... >:D
Removing the tax burden doesn't ensure that resources will go to feeding people. If there's some evidence that in this culture, it would, I'd like to see it.
Nothing will "insure" that resources will go to feeding people.
I've seen too many people using tax dollars to buy expensive foods and, well, junk, to believe it is impossible to believe we can't somehow reform this system if we had the will to. There may be people who legitimatly need help but they don't need filet mignon. That should be viewed as stelaing monies that could be better used buying cheaper but equally good food for others.
-
[Raises hand] Shouldn't we first decide whether government should feed the poor, before we discuss how good of a job they do?
Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.
-
Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.
fistful has the order correct, both morally and constitutionally.
-
Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.
I'm sorry; your answer is incorrect, and has been contributing to poverty in America since at least 1964.
-
fistful has the order correct, both morally and constitutionally.
Yes but is there evidence that it actually works? That was my point.
I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.
-
How could limited government be blamed for the starvation of millions of people?
-
Back to the issue of choices...
I have 2 siblings, an older sister and a younger brother.
We were all raised in the same house in a pretty much stereotypical middle class nuclear family.
All of us had essentially the same primary education and more or less the same opportunity for college.
My sister went the college route, after a disastrously abusive marriage to a moron and after coming home after disappearing for a year mom and dad helped her get back on track and into Jr. College, where she continued for the next 14-15 years acquiring a number of assoc. degrees none of which she uses. Of course after getting knocked up and the baby daddy dropping of the face of the earth she was able to get on the welfare ride where she was able to get money from the government as well as mom & dad and continue her life as a perpetual student. She attended a variety of local colleges, tech programs and the last go was Beauty School. All of this funded by a combination of government hand outs and mom's ( the primary enabler)checkbook.
At 52 She now lives in a run down mobile home ( it was nice enough when the folks bought it for her) and makes her living by an assortment of odd jobs, government handouts and part time pot sales.
Her son is a whole chapter on his own which would include drug and alcohol related interaction with the law. Never his fault of course.
My younger brother and I both went Navy, both took technical(electronics) training paths and both wound up with working for the same company by 2000.
Little brother managed to get himself fired for cause and now works grunt labor making air handlers. His path included 2.5 failed marriages and a refusal to even consider additional tech training. Both of his kids are decent with only his son having a minor brush with the law.
I was the bad child, the black sheep likely bound for prison.
I have a solid job, make decent money, been married to the same woman for more than 30 years and own my own home. Both of my kids are on there way to making a decent life for themselves, neither having been in trouble with the law.
Of the 3 of us kids I'm the only one that's never seen a jail cell from the inside.
I've made a few bad choices and had some setbacks but worked through them.
3 people with mostly identical opportunity with 3 different outcomes due to the choices we made
How a person's life works out is mostly about the choices they make for themselves. The rest is about how we handle the crap sandwiches life throws at us.
-
When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?
You're assuming we want to be feeding the poor to the levels government has achieved.
-
Yes but is there evidence that it actually works? That was my point.
I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.
Moral Hazard. Adverse Selection. Read about these things. I think Wiki probably even has an explanation of how they work.
-
I raised three kids with little help from their father, my family, the gov, etc. Three kids, same home, same rules, etc. Daughter is conservative (mostly), in school on her own dime, and has made intelligent choices. Two sons, neither in school, neither making choices I would prefer they make, but both working and living on their own. So far, no grandkids or marriages or addictions or abuse, or any other serious issues have arisen. Twins are 22, youngest is 20 - and he's struggling and giving me fits right now, but nothing a little "mom" in his face won't fix.
Yeah, it would have been a lot easier if I'd been able to stay married, finish my degree, had a normal family support systems, etc. But I really believe it comes down to the individual. Everyone has choices and how they react to the consequences of those choices is the deciding factor.
MrsSmith is here....all other arguments are invalid.
-
Yes but is there evidence that it actually works? That was my point.
I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.
Where is your evidence that millions of people were starving in the USA before the Great Society programs began in the 1960s ???
I've been dirt-poor, financially speaking, but never actually starving. Beans and potatoes are quite good actually.
-
Yes but is there evidence that it actually works? That was my point.
Did people die of malnutrition prior to .gov intervention. Yes. Do they still die of it now. Yes.
However, famines and widespread malnutrition only occur with the help of .gov's. Prior to the 30's malnutrition occurred only in isolated circumstances (like on the Oregon Trail :P ). In most civilized and built up areas, people were able to get enough to eat either through their own labors or from neighbors, churches and charities.
However, it has been shown time and time again that private organizations (Charities and Churches) do a far better job of providing for the "poor" than the .gov.
-
<snip>
Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the truly needy.
FYP
Sawdust
-
sigh.... sometime i laugh when the childless explain how to raise kids. other times i wanna choke someone out
-
True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?
The state is doing a pretty good job of raising feral youths, obese dependents, gang bangers and drug addicts. Sorry, but assistance really means dependence.
Do you consider dependence to be compassion?
-
Wait,what?
So are you saying that allof theTV shows that depict a 20-something single mother with an executive level job and a glamorous social life are mostly...fiction?
Meh. The lady that I'm hanging out with is basically that. And carries a Baby Eagle in .40. Yes, she is successful. And has a decent social life. She also works an insane number of hours raising two kids and working as an exec. To the point where it has impacted her health.
It is entirely possible to be a successful single mother. You need to be lucky, or be willing to work very hard. Not having children makes it easier to achieve higher wealth, but not does guarantee it.
It is entirely possible to climb out of poverty if you are willing to work hard and make sacrifices. It is not easy. It IS a sacrifice to have books (even ones from a library) shoved under your nose at any free second, soaking up any last piece of useful information. It's a sacrifice to spend all your free time doing what you have to do to succeed, instead of what you want to do. It's a sacrifice to always make the right choices.
-
sigh.... sometime i laugh when the childless explain how to raise kids. other times i wanna choke someone out
While i can see your point, i would point out that 1. Not being able to figure out a condom doesn'f confer deep parental secrets, and 2 i can find plenty of people with children that demenstratably know less about raiseing kids then one can learn just by watching.
Not saying you or your kids(although I think we're all praying someone else teaches your girls to type ;) ) but there do exist parents that could use the pointers, even from childless folks.
-
The state is doing a pretty good job of raising feral youths, obese dependents, gang bangers and drug addicts. Sorry, but assistance really means dependence.
Do you consider dependence to be compassion?
No, I don't, but I recognise the reality that millions of children (literally) get fed right now by the government - before cutting that off on principle Id like to see a realistic forecast for how the need gets met.
It's easy enough to blame it on their parents poor choices, but when those children grow up, they'll need to have at least a chance of making better ones. Not going to happen unless we have some way to get basic nutrition and education services to them.
-
It's easy enough to blame it on their parents poor choices, but when those children grow up, they'll need to have at least a chance of making better ones. Not going to happen unless we have some way to get basic nutrition and education services to them.
That's a very romantic notion, De Selby. Thankfully (or not) we have many years of experience with letting the government handle increasing amounts of nutrition and education for increasing numbers of dependent children. The reality of the situation is that the children who are brought up on government cheese are not making better choices. The programs supposedly designed to "break the cycle of poverty" through passing out food, money or education have not - speaking generally - done a good job in doing so, have they?
I believe there is a place for charity, but if the goal is to help people improve themselves, government is quite possibly the worst way of accomplishing it.
-
No, I don't, but I recognise the reality that millions of children (literally) get fed right now by the government - before cutting that off on principle Id like to see a realistic forecast for how the need gets met.
It's easy enough to blame it on their parents poor choices, but when those children grow up, they'll need to have at least a chance of making better ones. Not going to happen unless we have some way to get basic nutrition and education services to them.
When you feed stray cats, you get a lot more of them :facepalm:
-
When you feed stray cats, you get a lot more of them :facepalm:
I actually believe that it's "It you want more of something, have the .gov subsidize it."
And yes, if tomorrow the .gov stopped welfare, food stamps and the like (especially minimum wage), churches, private charities and the like would be more than able to pick up the slack. And it would force those non-productive to become productive, by weeding out those that are"gaming the system".
I'll have to tell the story(ies) of the two weeks I spent homeless sometime.
-
I honestly don't think stopping welfare checks and food stamps is going to cause any child to starve. I've known a couple single moms on food stamps and while it helped, it certainly wasn't the mainstay in keeping them alive or well-nourished.
People are going to eat. And they're going to give up other non-essentials to do so. It would be real hard for a child these days to die of starvation without teachers noticing. Not saying it couldn't happen, but teacher's these days are calling family services for damn near everything. (Remind me to tell you about the delightful six week long abuse investigation I was under for "sending" my daughter to school in a dirty shirt and shoes that were too big for her.)
There would likely be kids that slip through the cracks here and there. But the percentage would be so small, if it could even be tracked. Not that any child is expendable, but is it really worth the cost of an entire nation failing?
-
(Remind me to tell you about the delightful six week long abuse investigation I was under for "sending" my daughter to school in a dirty shirt and shoes that were too big for her.)
When my daughter REALLY steps out of line, wife & I STFU and don't even bother spanking. We just take all her clothes away and leave her only her older brother's hand-me-downs. Most of which are overlarge jeans with holes in the knees, overlarge shoes, and (formerly) white unbleached t-shirts.
You'd think we had forcibly enrolled her into The Excruciatingly Grave Sisters of the Beloved Flagellants nunnery for the week. Usually she breaks in a couple days so we can waive the next five and give her back the pretty things she so adores.
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum to place it, and I shall move the world."
----Archimedes
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum to place it, and I shall move a strong-willed child."
----roo_ster
-
Story time....
I'm the oldest of four boys, and we were all born and raised in Brazil. Dad is a Brazilian national, Mom is American. My dad worked his *arse* off, but built a fuel alcohol distillery from the ground up on the family farm. Prior to that, he worked as a mechanical engineer, taught engineering courses at the university, traveled the world as an engineer (at one point, he was fluent in four languages, and could communicate in at least three more). We weren't wealthy, but we were definitely upper middle class. We never wanted for anything that we truly needed, and had a lot of our wants fulfilled to. Mom was able to be a stay at home Mom, and raise us boys. When I was 10, the twins were born (in 1986). In 1987, the Brazilian economy was in the toilet, and my folks made the painful decision to move to the US.
We arrived in December of '87, and for the first few months lived with family members (I remember having to lay out my "bed" every night in the living room, setting up the cushions on the floor and covering with sheets, etc.) because frankly, most of my folks savings got depleted in the move to the US. Dad, a highly experienced mechanical engineer, couldn't find work as an engineer to save his life. He was "over-experienced" or some other BS. So he got work wherever he could. Primarily, he delivered pizza's for Domino's. Quite frequently our meals were mis-made pizzas that were left over at the store. He also worked doing auto repairs, and really any other work he could find. This was not enough to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table for two teenagers and two toddlers. So Dad swallowed his pride and they applied for food stamps. Even with that assistance, it wasn't enough for 4 boys. We lived in a 3 bedroom apartment (yup, two boys per room). Which looking back now, was a luxury that my parents worked their butts off to provide. What closed the food gap for my family was the church. There was a program put together by several of the local churches that provided food boxes once a week to families in need, based on family size, etc. And then there was our church itself. Not the "church" but the people of the church. More than once, we would come back to our car after services were over to find the backseat completely filled with bags of groceries.
Even after Dad was able to get work as an engineer, it was during a pretty tough time in the economy, and while it met our needs, it certainly didn't provide any luxuries. So Mom worked as the receptionist/secretary at the school in our church, which allowed my brothers and I to attend the school there. And while it wasn't as "diverse" in the numbers of courses, etc, the knowledge they did provide was *deep*.
So why tell you all this?
Of us four boys: I'm a dispatcher/EMT for the busiest EMS system in the state. I had been trying to get into med school, had several interested, but things got messed up with my application, and then I got married. I chose to do what I'm doing now instead of going to med school and possibly compromising my marriage. We don't have any kids yet, but we're planning on it, and we've been married for 5 years. We own a house, two vehicles that are paid off, and a lot of "toys". Our only debt is my student loan (which now that everything else is paid off, we're going to tackle head on) and our mortgage. We could have bought a much bigger, much newer, and more expensive house. But we chose to set things up so that we could live strictly on my income once we have kids, so that my wife *can* be home and raise our kids (her choice, btw). Because she saw how much of an impact that made in both our lives.
My next younger brother, is a project manager for the low voltage side (automation and communication) for one of the largest electrical companies in the NW. the projects he works on are anywhere from the hundreds of thousand to millions of dollars. Just *his* portion of the jobs. The whole jobs are sometimes up to multi-million dollars, just for the electrical work - they just won bids for a couple of different hospitals either being built or majorly renovated. He is married, has been for 10 years, has two daughters that are polite, respectful, and intelligent. Yes, they can be a handful at times, but they *aren't* hooligans. They've also set themselves up so he is able to provide their needs, and his wife is also able to stay home with the girls.
The third brother is working for Verizon, and is trying to decide between continuing in the retail side and becoming a store manager, or to step into the technical side of the house. He's been married for about 4 years, with their first child being about 18 months old, and she's incredibly smart. His wife is also able to be a stay at home mom. They're saving up to purchase a house.
My youngest brother has been married for about three years, he and his wife both work, but he's working on his Master's in counseling to be a child counselor. They don't have any kids yet, and are saving up for a house.
I would say that the common theme for us boys was quite simple. Mom was able to be actively involved in our lives even while she was working (worked at our school). Dad was involved, even if he was working his butt off. He was never too busy to help us with a math problem or a science problem in our homework, or to help with Boy Scout projects. More than once I spent hours with him under a car, tinkering on an engine, or changing a clutch. Our parents were *involved* in our lives. They also weren't afraid to discipline us when we got out of line (and believe me, 4 boys managed to find all sorts of ways to get out of line). They instilled in all of us a love of learning, and to enjoy math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, hard sciences that have real world applications.
Ultimately, they instilled in us the knowledge that in order to get anything, you have to work hard and sacrifice. Rev kinda hit the nail on the head with a comment he made:
It is entirely possible to climb out of poverty if you are willing to work hard and make sacrifices. It is not easy. It IS a sacrifice to have books (even ones from a library) shoved under your nose at any free second, soaking up any last piece of useful information. It's a sacrifice to spend all your free time doing what you have to do to succeed, instead of what you want to do. It's a sacrifice to always make the right choices.
We could have chosen to live the "American Nightmare". Bury ourselves in so much debt we have no hope of getting out. Try to "keep up with the Joneses". Even if the Joneses have had 20 years to accumulate what they currently have now. We want it all, and we want it now, and damn the consequences.
-
AmbulanceDriver is here....all other arguments are invalid.
-
AmbulanceDriver is here....all other arguments are invalid.
??? I's confuzled......
-
??? I's confuzled......
You is example....example that proves argument....
-
You is example....example that proves argument....
Like I said before, everyone has the story about cousin Zeke who was weaned on motor oil and ended up being Donald Trump's payday lender. That's anecdote, not evidence, and more importantly, the dynamics of your ability to compete in tough circumstances will change dramatically if millions of other people are cut off Federal aid, even if you never used it.
It's one thing to have a success story when you're one of a small percentage vying for some resource; whole different kettle of fish when millions more people are forced into that pool.
Sure, charities might take care of the gap - I'd want to see that with some certainty before abolishing all government food assistance. Again, the point being that blaming parents for malnourished and uneducated kids doesn't address the fact that you now have a person who doesn't have the toolkit to participate in all the wholesome poverty lifting businesses out there.
-
I'd want to see that with some certainty before abolishing all government food assistance.
What you want to see is government stealing money from responsible folks to give to bums :mad:
-
Like I said before, everyone has the story about cousin Zeke who was weaned on motor oil and ended up being Donald Trump's payday lender. That's anecdote, not evidence [...]
Very true
It's one thing to have a success story when you're one of a small percentage vying for some resource; whole different kettle of fish when millions more people are forced into that pool.
Agreed.
Sure, charities might take care of the gap - I'd want to see that with some certainty before abolishing all government food assistance. Again, the point being that blaming parents for malnourished and uneducated kids doesn't address the fact that you now have a person who doesn't have the toolkit to participate in all the wholesome poverty lifting businesses out there.
You make a valid criticism of people using anecdotes as evidence, but support your own position with nothing but vague and apocryphal feel-good pablum about giving underprivileged kids the toolkit to lift themselves out of poverty. Let's see how successful we have been by that measure.
Federal SNAP program enrollment as a percent of population from inception to 2011.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlLqD4.png&hash=e62df797518366b57681217e7e12a8f3127321fe)
Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
US poverty rates:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FArtAndPhoto-Fronts%2FUSNEWS%2FGraphics%2FUS-poverty-rate-600px.photoblog600.gif&hash=cb06640c8d8017058f70731aab0fd7c40e9aad79)
So, if the intent (along with that of the mess of other welfare and assistance programs at the state and federal level) is to raise people out of poverty - over generations at least, if not specific individuals - would you then agree that Federal food stamps and other aid programs have been a colossal failure based on the steadily increasing enrollment in SNAP and the steadily increasing number of "impoverished"?
-
De Selby, I'm going to make one point here, then probably be done... Because I don't like to argue with the proverbial immovable object...
When I'm on a call and I hear a statement like the following, from a guy who was complaining to his buddy about how his brand new, loaded to the gills Cadillac Escalade might be getting repossessed: "Even with number seven on the way, welfare don't pay enough!"
how am I not supposed to want to completely gut and massively overhaul the entire system?
And I'm gonna be real blunt here. Guys like the one I just quoted? They can either get off their lazy asses and get a job, or they can starve. Don't give me this hanky-twisting liberal bushwa about it not being their fault. Actually, it's not all their fault. They've had generations of liberal politicians telling them that they deserve a standard of living that they don't actually have to work to attain.
-
Very trueAgreed.You make a valid criticism of people using anecdotes as evidence, but support your own position with nothing but vague and apocryphal feel-good pablum about giving underprivileged kids the toolkit to lift themselves out of poverty. Let's see how successful we have been by that measure.
Federal SNAP program enrollment as a percent of population from inception to 2011.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlLqD4.png&hash=e62df797518366b57681217e7e12a8f3127321fe)
Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
US poverty rates:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FArtAndPhoto-Fronts%2FUSNEWS%2FGraphics%2FUS-poverty-rate-600px.photoblog600.gif&hash=cb06640c8d8017058f70731aab0fd7c40e9aad79)
So, if the intent (along with that of the mess of other welfare and assistance programs at the state and federal level) is to raise people out of poverty - over generations at least, if not specific individuals - would you then agree that Federal food stamps and other aid programs have been a colossal failure based on the steadily increasing enrollment in SNAP and the steadily increasing number of "impoverished"?
Well, increasing poverty and enrollment in food assistance would seem to go hand in hand - I doubt there's any meaningful comparison there, because factors other than nutrition drive poverty.
It isn't apocryphal or vague to state that malnutrition in children impairs brain development - I'd hope I don't need to drag out a medical study to support that claim.
It also shouldn't be necessary to point out that impaired cognitive abilities severely limit employment options in our economy.
Hence, any policy that could reduce nutrition for children needs to be heavily scrutinized before its adopted. Otherwise, we have the grossly unfair situation of raising kids whose choices will be limited because of a food supply that had no say in creating.
Sure, it might be nice to blame that outcome on their parents or failed charities or government, but who think is morally responsible for an outcome isn't going to change it.
-
Well, increasing poverty and enrollment in food assistance would seem to go hand in hand - I doubt there's any meaningful comparison there, because factors other than nutrition drive poverty.
You're (intentionally, I believe) missing the point. Of course factors other than nutrition drive poverty, but your defense of the SNAP program centers around helping kids escape future poverty. Are you entirely unaware of the strongly multi-generational nature of poverty under the current system? That would seem to indicate that the current system is failing to accomplish its goals, wouldn't it?
You stated that the government's strategy of providing food and whatever else to impoverished families will give children the tools they need to pull themselves out of poverty. The government has provided food (and cash, and education, and housing, and cell phones, etc., etc.) and rather than people pulling themselves out of poverty and SNAP enrollment over time decreasing, both have increased.
It isn't apocryphal or vague to state that malnutrition in children impairs brain development - I'd hope I don't need to drag out a medical study to support that claim.
I'm not arguing that. What is apocryphal and vague is the notion that the government's welfare is doing what you claim it is. Except in a vanishingly small percentage of cases where people manage their budget as well as can be expected but still cannot even afford basic staples, government food assistance does not encourage improved nutrition.
It also shouldn't be necessary to point out that impaired cognitive abilities severely limit employment options in our economy.
Of course not, but you have a dual failures here.
Failure the first: People are using the system to buy the food they would buy anyway, and using the money they save on food for non-nutritive purchases. Thus, the benefits provided by the government are treated as fungible income and do not result in improved nutrition for children. This leads to some of our local schools providing three meals a day to children of families on SNAP because the parents (who are given the resources to buy food, remember) are not providing adequate nutrition for their children.
Failure the second: the problem of multi-generational poverty in the US is not centrally the lack of nutrition. Employment options are limited far more by other factors than cognitive impairment brought on by lack of sufficient nutrition.
Hence, any policy that could reduce nutrition for children needs to be heavily scrutinized before its adopted. Otherwise, we have the grossly unfair situation of raising kids whose choices will be limited because of a food supply that had no say in creating.
I don’t believe you have shown that the current policy provides improved nutrition for children in the first place, thus negating your other points.
Also, as my dad was so fond of reminding me: Life is unfair.
-
Sure, charities might take care of the gap - I'd want to see that with some certainty before abolishing all government food assistance. Again, the point being that blaming parents for malnourished and uneducated kids doesn't address the fact that you now have a person who doesn't have the toolkit to participate in all the wholesome poverty lifting businesses out there.
Well, right now you have people who get welfare, free lunch programs at school and who knows what other assistance and people like you still complain about malnutrition issues.
What you need to prove to us is how many of those people you reference are actually out there? As opposed to be gaming the system who have the ability and health to work, but don't. You don't know how many of those people there are because govt does not and cannot differentiate between people who really need help and those that are just lazy or bums.
Also, considering that the welfare program still eats up the vast majority of its funding in administrative costs, even if only a fraction of the returned tax money is given to charity, it will likely still be more than what makes it there now.
-
In the town where I grew up, you can stand by the checkouts at Walmart and watch the procession of people, usually fat, who check out twice--once with a cart full of junk food, paid for with their Ohio card, and the other full of beer and cigarettes, which they pay for with cash. These are not edge cases, it's just the way it is; the standard strategy. It happens all day long. Then occasionally you get the guy with a cart full of nice cuts of steak, which I never buy (too expensive), all paid for with his Ohio card, while I stand in the same line with my frugal choices for my family paying out of my pocket like the biggest sucker in the world. I would probably buy cigarettes, if they weren't $7 a pack, but all MY extra money seems to be spent on taxes.
They keep prices on things like milk jacked up and assume that their small portion of customers who pay cash will ask for a price match to the discount grocers in town. When my mom goes to the same walmart, the cashiers automatically OFFER her a price match on expensive groceries as soon as they find out she is paying cash.
The system is so wrong it's palpable, and it's perpetuated by apologists, usually with little exposure to its reality, who allow themselves to be tricked into thinking it's about feeding the hungry. It's about feeding the hungry the way gun control is about saving the children, the DMCA is about saving poor starving artists, and the war on drugs is about...I forgot what that's supposed to be about actually. The thing is, I'm a very charitable person, but the government taking my money and giving it to slobs is not charity.
-
Like I said before, everyone has the story about cousin Zeke who was weaned on motor oil and ended up being Donald Trump's payday lender. That's anecdote, not evidence, and more importantly, the dynamics of your ability to compete in tough circumstances will change dramatically if millions of other people are cut off Federal aid, even if you never used it.
It's one thing to have a success story when you're one of a small percentage vying for some resource; whole different kettle of fish when millions more people are forced into that pool.
Sure, charities might take care of the gap - I'd want to see that with some certainty before abolishing all government food assistance. Again, the point being that blaming parents for malnourished and uneducated kids doesn't address the fact that you now have a person who doesn't have the toolkit to participate in all the wholesome poverty lifting businesses out there.
The evidence is in the millions of people stuck in America's poverty cycle. There's something to be said for dying free, instead of living enslaved.
-
??? It must have somehow become incredibly difficult to provide children with good food since I grew up.
We just had those pesky "food groups" when I was a kid.
And America doesn't have poverty anywhere near like what some African countries have.
-
Well, right now you have people who get welfare, free lunch programs at school and who knows what other assistance and people like you still complain about malnutrition issues.
What you need to prove to us is how many of those people you reference are actually out there? As opposed to be gaming the system who have the ability and health to work, but don't. You don't know how many of those people there are because govt does not and cannot differentiate between people who really need help and those that are just lazy or bums.
Also, considering that the welfare program still eats up the vast majority of its funding in administrative costs, even if only a fraction of the returned tax money is given to charity, it will likely still be more than what makes it there now.
Besides that, we have far surpassed the point of Government providing necessity and government being the enabler.
-
Well, increasing poverty and enrollment in food assistance would seem to go hand in hand
Is that what you got out of those charts?
-
So it's good and right for the government to hold a gun to my head, take my money, and give it to the f***stains buying carts of food with their EBT cards and wheeling them out to their new Caddies and Lexus cars?
-
>It isn't apocryphal or vague to state that malnutrition in children impairs brain development<
No, it's not. However, you're assuming that the folks "surviving" on their EBT card will purchase nutritional food for their kids...
-
>It isn't apocryphal or vague to state that malnutrition in children impairs brain development<
No, it's not. However, you're assuming that the folks "surviving" on their EBT card will purchase nutritional food for their kids...
There are programs (being cut) that require them to do so - WIC, for example.
Cordex, I think we're talking past each other - I'm interested in seeing that people have a fair opportunity to get out of poverty, not in granting them all the money that would be required to make whatever the Feds say is not poverty. The shifting measure and other factors involved make the direct comparison not so useful - food isn't going to get people doing well in the economy by itself. But childhood nutrition and basic education are necessary (not sufficient) conditions of doing so.
Mech,
Notice that we are talking about cutting those programs here - my question was how many people will not be able to eat without the welfare we have? If we can be reasonably certain charities will pick up the slack, fine, but I don't see any evidence they can.
-
I'm interested in seeing that people have a fair opportunity to get out of poverty,
Here's the problem. you may be interested in that. Once they suck at the free money/food trough, they don't want to sieze that opportunity. it's far easier to take the money than to earn it. The poverty cycle will continue as long as that is allowed. Start placing hard limits on welfare and actually having requirements, and you'll have more people striving to get off of it.
But that's not going to happen. Politicians use welfare to buy votes.
-
Personally, I don't care if anyone starves out of the lack of government programs.
The undeniable fact is that all welfare is forced charity under the threat of violence by the state.
Monopoly of force is immoral.
-
Personally, I don't care if anyone starves out of the lack of government programs.
Hunger is a powerful motivator.
Unfortunately what is described as 'hunger' or 'malnutrition' or 'poverty' by many has less to do with food and more to do with a lack of big screen TVs and Xboxes.
-
Employment options are limited far more by other factors than cognitive impairment brought on by lack of sufficient nutrition.
In my experience, now that I'm working back in an environment that includes "general labor" the three main limiters are:
1) Showing up for work
2) Actually doing work when you're there.
3) Showing up for work reliably.
Back when I was in IT, yeah, cognitive abilities affected ones ability to get into that realm. But not so much with turning bolts and picking weeds. These are things a child can do.
Simple fact is people don't want to work. When Arkansas and Georgia enacted strict (and I would say stupid) illegal immigrant policies farms couldn't find people to work the fields. Jobs paid $12/hr in Arkansas and $17/hr in Georgia. People would not do them. They're lazy. They'd rather collect unemployment and welfare benefits.
And, De Selby, before you give me any crap about that work being too hard for the pay: I'm out there doing it. I prefer that work over sitting in an office writing code.
-
Cordex, I think we're talking past each other - I'm interested in seeing that people have a fair opportunity to get out of poverty, not in granting them all the money that would be required to make whatever the Feds say is not poverty.
Just curious, but what is a "fair opportunity" to get out of poverty? As Giga point out, when a person isn't taught a work ethic it simply doesn't matter how nutritious their breakfast was. And as Avenger notes, the incentive provided by government-provided free food is not to escape poverty.
The shifting measure and other factors involved make the direct comparison not so useful - food isn't going to get people doing well in the economy by itself. But childhood nutrition and basic education are necessary (not sufficient) conditions of doing so.
Yet becoming addicted to receiving "free" gubmint handouts - food or otherwise - negates the value of education and nutrition.
Notice that we are talking about cutting those programs here - my question was how many people will not be able to eat without the welfare we have? If we can be reasonably certain charities will pick up the slack, fine, but I don't see any evidence they can.
Charities would probably never be able to afford to feed everyone who is on welfare now in the manner they have grown accustomed. On the other hand, they almost certainly could provide for most of the truly needy. If charities (or other individuals) can't or won't do so in a particular instance, you are more than welcome to pick up the slack. Or me. Or anyone else who feels that providing for someone truly in need is moral and good.
-
In my experience, now that I'm working back in an environment that includes "general labor" the three main limiters are:
1) Showing up for work
2) Actually doing work when you're there.
3) Showing up for work reliably.
Back when I was in IT, yeah, cognitive abilities affected ones ability to get into that realm. But not so much with turning bolts and picking weeds. These are things a child can do.
Simple fact is people don't want to work. When Arkansas and Georgia enacted strict (and I would say stupid) illegal immigrant policies farms couldn't find people to work the fields. Jobs paid $12/hr in Arkansas and $17/hr in Georgia. People would not do them. They're lazy. They'd rather collect unemployment and welfare benefits.
And, De Selby, before you give me any crap about that work being too hard for the pay: I'm out there doing it. I prefer that work over sitting in an office writing code.
The work is too hard for the pay. Why? Because government subsidizes people NOT to do the work.
-
Mech,
Notice that we are talking about cutting those programs here - my question was how many people will not be able to eat without the welfare we have? If we can be reasonably certain charities will pick up the slack, fine, but I don't see any evidence they can.
Of course it will be difficult for charitable orgs to correct the massive problem that government programs have created.
-
The work is too hard for the pay. Why? Because government subsidizes people NOT to do the work.
Yep, bet if they weren't picking up their unemployment check and food stamps, there would have been a long line for those jobs.....Hunger is a great motivator...