Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Oct 25, 2012 15:40:06 GMT -5
To address the original question: there is so much need because the current economic system is stacked to keep the rich rich and keep out the middle class and poor.
For those who refuse to "support others' choices" - exactly whose choice is it to be born into poverty? Because once you are born into poverty, it's almost inescapable. The United States, for all of our talk about being a meritocracy, has LESS social mobility than Eurpoean countries. Born poor? Live poor and die poor.
Along with the increasing gap in income disparity, you also have an increasing gap in test scores between the rich and the poor.
So, if you make the choice to be born poor, you receive substandard education, inadequate healthcare, less healthy food, parents that understand the value of education less (most likely having been born poor themselves) and so on and so on. But, for fuck's sake, let's make sure that none of us are ever responsible for someone else's bad "choices." Great points, guys.
ETA: Obviously, this is not the case for every person. My father, is in fact someone who grew up on welfare, in the projects and is now technically a 1%-er. So, I know it can happen. Does it often? No.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:40:35 GMT -5
Once you start on the "dip", it's very hard to change trajectory. It's not going to "dissolve the country" in our lifetime, but China is already facing some big problems, and their one-child policy hasn't been in place that long...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:41:16 GMT -5
::At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying.::
We don't need THAT many kids. Replacing EVERYONE who has died means we're also making sure to replace the same number of welfare lifers/scammers and those who are unemployed long-term.
If there are 150M people (just making this up) who are adults and capable of working, and we have 110M jobs that are available to those people, we don't need to replace 150M people, replacing 145M isn't going to dissolve our country.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 15:41:56 GMT -5
...::: the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies... :::...
But one of the reasons that responsible middle and upper class people aren't having kids is that they find they can't afford them due in part to the increasing taxes and regulations that are encouraging the lower classes to have kids.
Not a good plan for a society.
BTW, I'm all for changing our immigration policies. As in prior years, open up the doors to immigrants who are willing to work and add to the system. No social benefits, though. That will continue to attract and retain the best and hardest working from all over the world. A good plan for our society.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:42:10 GMT -5
Once you start on the "dip", it's very hard to change trajectory. It's not going to "dissolve the country" in our lifetime, but China is already facing some big problems, and their one-child policy hasn't been in place that long... And that's a MASSIVE dip. we're not talking about cutting the child-bearing population in half here.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:42:57 GMT -5
::But, you ask me, sending my kids to an orphanage is not what is best for them & I would do anything & everything to keep that from happening. :: But you think giving them a role model of someone who steals is better? Or growing up without a mother at all because you get killed or locked up from your crimes? I would do what it takes to survive & teach my kids to do the same. It isn't their fault that society would be so f'ed up to take them away if I lost my job. I don't believe a stranger can raise my kids better than me. I don't believe an orphanage would be at all in their best interest because I am down on my luck. If wanting to protect my kids & being willing to do anything to do that makes me a bad role model, then yes I would be a bad role model. As far as getting killed or locked up. Not likely. Stealing isn't that hard. Ex knows a lot of people that do bad things & they rarely get caught. I would do fine. I can learn to be a hustler
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:43:05 GMT -5
If only there were some way to predict at birth who would grow up to be a welfare lifer or suffer long-term unemployment... we could just go ahead and kill them and save ourselves the money. What a wonderful world that would be.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:44:01 GMT -5
This isn't India. Middle and upper-class kids sometimes end up in working-class jobs. Working-class kids sometimes end up in the middle or upper classes (or hell, President). The point was not "if only the middle and upper class have kids, no one will work the low-paying jobs"... the point was that the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies... Thank you Mid
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 15:44:46 GMT -5
By taking them away from people they are attached to and love them because for a temporary time those people are having a hard time? Yes, kids need to be fed, sheltered, and clothed, but they also need love and support.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:45:12 GMT -5
::I don't believe a stranger can raise my kids better than me.::
Yes, but every parent believes this. Even the ones who end up killing their own kids. So I'm not sure this is a really valid argument, even though I realize you believe it and in your case is probably true.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:46:46 GMT -5
::By taking them away from people they are attached to and love them because for a temporary time those people are having a hard time? Yes, kids need to be fed, sheltered, and clothed, but they also need love and support. ::
If those people really love them, then they would have already planned for how to get through temporary hard times.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:47:06 GMT -5
I do agree with this.
But I forget who it was who made the analogy that it takes about 25 miles to turn a freighter ship around. I like this analogy and think it applies here. I'm all in favor of incentivizing those who are currently receiving aid to eventually wean off the aid, and to incentivize those who can afford kids (and who want kids) to have them.
But it's not going to happen immediately. And it's never going to be completely fair or completely perfect or completely 'scammer'-free.
And some of the measures proposed (particularly the orphanage one) aren't going to help the situation, but rather exacerbate it.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,084
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 25, 2012 15:48:13 GMT -5
To an extent you are right. People don't always do what is best for their kids in the bigger picture. But, you ask me, sending my kids to an orphanage is not what is best for them & I would do anything & everything to keep that from happening. You also are discounting a mother's instinct. I will do whatever it takes to protect my cubs. You are assuming that every mom is born with a mothering instinct. I didn't bond with my first child until he was well over a year. Sure, I still worked my job, changed diapers, etc. But I was completely going through the motions. My mom is likely BPD. (Borderline personality disorder). Her mothering instinct is a little wack-a-doo. Actually, it would have been better for me to be removed from the house in some respects. Kids aren't given a manual on how to cope in a healthy manner when they are actively being raised by a mentally/emotionally unhealthy person. My best friend knowingly married an alcoholic and then had a child by him. Personally, choosing to raise your child with a known addict doesn't display a good sense of maternal instinct. I also do have to wonder about the "mothering instinct" of a poor family I know. The mom just had her 6th child. They are done. There are 9 people that live in a two bedroom apartment. Mom, dad, and the three youngest have one bedroom. Uncle and older brother have the other bedroom. The two oldest girls (20 and 13) sleep in the livingroom. The youngest is 6 months old. Sure, by now, they have figured out how to make a baby. And, while, yes this mom does the right things (breastfeeds and loves the baby), you have to wonder if having 9 people in a two bedroom apartment is the "best" thing for that family. You do have to wonder if maybe stopping after the 4th child would have been a better option. ETA: Now you have 6 kids that ARE learning that it's OK do to what you want, no matter if you can afford it or not, because gov't will step in and take care of you. Whereas, we have 3 kids that are learning you only get what you can afford-what you've earned because of your work. That said, the oldest girl was attending community college, so I think they (the family) "get" that their kids need a better life than their childhood. But, I just don't understand how having more kids means giving them a better life.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:48:21 GMT -5
::I don't believe a stranger can raise my kids better than me.:: Yes, but every parent believes this. Even the ones who end up killing their own kids. So I'm not sure this is a really valid argument, even though I realize you believe it and in your case is probably true. I am just stating the way most women would feel and how many would react to the situation. Most women wouldn't take kindly to their kids being removed, even though I agree in some instances it would be in the kids best interest. A wholesale change in denying welfare & opening orphanages would not be a good shift for society because people would fight it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:48:47 GMT -5
::And some of the measures proposed (particularly the orphanage one) aren't going to help the situation, but rather exacerbate it.::
Some of us probably believe that a child has a better chance at success in life in an orphanage than being raised by a welfare lifer who instills in their children that the world owes them something and should provide everything they need in life.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:49:33 GMT -5
I wondered how long until I saw something like this. I don't even know what to say.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:50:51 GMT -5
::Most women wouldn't take kindly to their kids being removed, even though I agree in some instances it would be in the kids best interest.::
I agree, what I'm saying is I care more about the child's best interest than whether or not mom is going to throw a hissy fit because of it. Mom can be as pissed as she wants and fight it all she wants. I realize I'm not a politician running for office so I don't have to deal with voter fallout, I'm working off the basis of what I think is best for the kid, now on how I can get elected to office.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:50:58 GMT -5
Wait, so are you saying only the 'lifers' should have their kids removed? Because the original suggestion (made by Zib/Athena) was that anyone receiving welfare at any point should have their kids removed.
(IMO a repulsive scenario either way, but I want to be clear on what we're discussing).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:51:05 GMT -5
...::: the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies... :::... But one of the reasons that responsible middle and upper class people aren't having kids is that they find they can't afford them due in part to the increasing taxes and regulations that are encouraging the lower classes to have kids. Not a good plan for a society. Actually a big reason they can't afford them is due to their own choices. We can't have the kid's share a room. We have to pay for every kid's education. We can't downgrade our lifestyle & be a single income family, but we can't afford additional daycare either. People could have a lot more kids if they wanted. I don't care that they aren't, but it is due to the choices they are making. Edited to fix my ridiculous double negative. Yea grammar!
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 25, 2012 15:51:15 GMT -5
::Considering a lot of military qualify for WIC, then I guess you could say we have serious societal problems.:: The problem that we give WIC assistance to far more people than who actually need it? Or the problem that we've got military believing that joining the military should be able to support 2 adults and as many kids as they want to have? I agree, it's a problem. While I was active duty the only people I knew with more than 2 kids were the older staff Sargent that had kids back when you used to get paid your BAQ based on how many kids you had. The vast majority of my friends in the military have no more than 2 kids. Nearly every married enlisted I knew had a spouse that was either military as well or worked full time. I only knew of two or three spouses out of the 45 military members that made up my particular squadron that were SAHM. Like I said before as two E-3's my husband and I qualified for WIC. We didn't take it but we qualified.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:54:55 GMT -5
::Most women wouldn't take kindly to their kids being removed, even though I agree in some instances it would be in the kids best interest.:: I agree, what I'm saying is I care more about the child's best interest than whether or not mom is going to throw a hissy fit because of it. Mom can be as pissed as she wants and fight it all she wants. I realize I'm not a politician running for office so I don't have to deal with voter fallout, I'm working off the basis of what I think is best for the kid, now on how I can get elected to office. But, do you really think that if I lose my job & remain unemployed for 6 months & can only find a McJob after that, that it is truly in my kid's best interest to be in an orphanage? Is an orphanage really better than a loving family that merely needs some food stamps until a better job comes along? How is being ripped from a good home at all emotionally or psychologically good for a child?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:55:45 GMT -5
What's your background in child welfare? I'm amazed that you can make such broad sweeping statements, since generally the determination of "the best interest of the child" is made using a variety of factors (not just household income/aid status) and completely dependent upon the situation.
But if you've come up with a new foolproof way to evaluate this, I'm sure the states would love to know your method.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 15:56:09 GMT -5
...::: the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies... :::... But one of the reasons that responsible middle and upper class people aren't having kids is that they find they can't afford them due in part to the increasing taxes and regulations that are encouraging the lower classes to have kids. Not a good plan for a society. Actually a big reason they can't afford them is due to their own choices. We can't have the kid's share a room. We can't not pay for every kid's education. We can't downgrade our lifestyle & be a single income family, but we can't afford additional daycare either. People could have a lot more kids if they wanted. I don't care that they aren't, but it is due to the choices they are making. As long as they're being responsible for their own choices, that's reasonable. If you decide you don't want your kids to share a room and your house is full so you're not having more kids, that sounds like a reasonable decision that a responsible person would make. (But don't forget that part of why you can't afford more rooms may be the amount of taxes you're paying or the fact that your job pays less than it otherwise would because your business has to pay increased taxes, etc.) On the other hand, because of the way the social programs are set up, the people receiving welfare have no such incentive to make those good choices. Have another baby = receive more aid to pay for that baby. So the incentives are not aligned to create good choices. People who are taking care of their own responsibilities and showing they are capable of supporting their family have large disincentives to having children while people who can't support themselves have incentives to have children. Bad idea.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:57:01 GMT -5
Wait, so are you saying only the 'lifers' should have their kids removed? Because the original suggestion (made by Zib/Athena) was that anyone receiving welfare at any point should have their kids removed. (IMO a repulsive scenario either way, but I want to be clear on what we're discussing). I don't know that I'm specifically saying either. I actually prefer a system where we (as a society) help pay for "needs". But far more stringent, and my assumption that in a lot of those cases parents aren't going to actually provide the children's needs at which point they get taken away. I don't wanna take kids away because you got unemployment for instance (i dunno, sometimes people refer to that as welfare). I could probably be persuaded that if you're going ot receive "welfare" at all yeah we can take the kids and provide their needs for them. Though I would think it would skew more toward people who decided to get pregnant and have their kids all while being on welfare. And under none of those circumstances (even lifers) am I suggesting we adopt your kids out against your will. Take the kids, take care of them, and give the adults an opportunity to get on their feet. If they choose never to get on their feet, then their kids are probably better off learning life skills from people who actually know them.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 15:58:29 GMT -5
::Most women wouldn't take kindly to their kids being removed, even though I agree in some instances it would be in the kids best interest.:: I agree, what I'm saying is I care more about the child's best interest than whether or not mom is going to throw a hissy fit because of it. Mom can be as pissed as she wants and fight it all she wants. I realize I'm not a politician running for office so I don't have to deal with voter fallout, I'm working off the basis of what I think is best for the kid, now on how I can get elected to office. Countless studies show that it is not in the kids best interest to simply remove them from a home where they are loved but simply having difficulties making ends meet.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:00:25 GMT -5
::But, do you really think that if I lose my job & remain unemployed for 6 months & can only find a McJob after that, that it is truly in my kid's best interest to be in an orphanage?::
Personally, I don't think unemployment is welfare, so you can collect that all you want.
And personally, I think you can probably afford your kid on a McJob.
And you say orphanage, but orphanages are for orphans, I don't think the kids should be orphaned. Maybe it's semantics to you, but it doesn't have to be the traditional "orphanage" like Oliver Twist or something.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 16:00:25 GMT -5
::Most women wouldn't take kindly to their kids being removed, even though I agree in some instances it would be in the kids best interest.:: I agree, what I'm saying is I care more about the child's best interest than whether or not mom is going to throw a hissy fit because of it. Mom can be as pissed as she wants and fight it all she wants. I realize I'm not a politician running for office so I don't have to deal with voter fallout, I'm working off the basis of what I think is best for the kid, now on how I can get elected to office. But, do you really think that if I lose my job & remain unemployed for 6 months & can only find a McJob after that, that it is truly in my kid's best interest to be in an orphanage? Is an orphanage really better than a loving family that merely needs some food stamps until a better job comes along? How is being ripped from a good home at all emotionally or psychologically good for a child? I don't agree with Hoops and Zib that taking your kids away is a good idea in this situation. On the other hand, I do think it would be reasonable that in exchange for assistance, you not have any more children since you can't support the ones you have. I'd gladly help feed, clothe and give shelter to families like this.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:01:12 GMT -5
::Countless studies show that it is not in the kids best interest to simply remove them from a home where they are loved but simply having difficulties making ends meet. ::
And I'm arguing whether the kids are actually loved if the parents haven't even made plans for how to support them during temporary hard times that nearly everyone has at some point in their lives.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 16:01:13 GMT -5
So the incentives are not aligned to create good choices. 100% agree. They need to rework the welfare system so there is more incentive to work. Or at the very least not a disincentive to make more money.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:01:39 GMT -5
Which is good in theory, but pretty unenforceable without a major violation of constitutional rights.
The only way I can see it working is paying people NOT to have kids (isn't there a country that does that?)
|
|