Anybody else hear about this today? I was watching FauxNews in the lobby today and I saw them talking about a plan in NY to pay poor people for doing things like going to PTA meetings, having their kids get good grades and have good attendance at school. I've got no links for this, and I don't feel like googling it, but I figured I would throw it out there.

I think it is a stupid idea and that it is a stunning example of how taxpayer dollars should NOT be spent, mainly because it is a blatant form of income redistribution, and I consider such things to be unConstitutional (let's not get into SS). I think it is great to try and spur people to make good decisions, I don't see how it is right to take people's money and give it to the poor just because the poor made a decision that they should have made anyway.

anyway, if anyone finds a link, then post it. I'm not sure if it was NYC or NY, but I think it was NYC, given that it was Bloomberg that was promoting it, IIRC.

6/19/2007 7:24:38 PM

wow that is fucking retarted. Paying people to take advantage of free education that benefits them better job opportunities and economic success.

This kind of shit is why I consider myself a Libertarian not a Liberal. Some people are stupid and should not be nannied and hand held by the gov't through out there life. Throwing handouts at people does not solve Chronic poverty problems.

6/19/2007 8:01:22 PM

This is great and is a form of justice. Should be done across America. Most poor people did not choose to be poor and have been held down in many ways causing them to stay poor. Everything in this country is setup for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Things should not be harder for poor people. Its time to turn the tables. God bless America.

6/19/2007 8:56:15 PM

I have to wonder if the reasoning is, a single poor mother of 2 that can't afford to leave her 3rd hourly job for even an extra second to attend these meetings, can now take that hour off to sit down and have a teacher tell her that her son is a total inconsiderate fuckbag (because she didn't raise him right). At the least, she can get some feedback and get an hour more to be involved in her kids life than before.

Might not be a bad thing.

6/19/2007 9:00:10 PM

Here is your story

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284275,00.html


It seems that poor people need some more motivation, since we got that whole survival thing covered for them already.

I heard a great qoute on the radio the other day. The person was talking about how a certain party is always using class warfare, rich vs. poor, etc. He said basically that some people are just plain stupid with money, and if the govt took everyones money and divided it equally to everyone, in two years you would be right back to having the rich and poor all over again. So true.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 9:04:44 PM

^ yeah look at post katrina. Victims displaced by the disaster were given $1500 debit cards to buy supplied and help rebuild their lives. Where did a lot of this money go?? A nbc report a few months later documented how a lot of these people squandered this money on strip clubs, booze, and other shit not on necessities.

Quote :

"his is great and is a form of justice. Should be done across America. Most poor people did not choose to be poor and have been held down in many ways causing them to stay poor. Everything in this country is setup for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Things should not be harder for poor people. Its time to turn the tables. God bless America."

I hope you are joking. Yeah they do not choose to be poor. Poverty sucks but they are given an free education and have the opportunity to improve their lives. No you are not guaranteed a 1.2 million dollar house or a BMW but there is little excuse for people living in poverty. I will agree that in my opinion the current administration focuses on policies and legislation the tend to benefit their rich buddies and big corporations rather then the average American citizen. My economic beliefs are more traditional conservative instead of socialist liberal but I believe corporate welfare is worse social welfare. Neocons like the Bush administration has shown a strong preference to the former. Both though should be drastically reduced in my opinion.



[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason : l]

6/19/2007 9:54:28 PM

^ if my town had just gotten destroyed by a flood, i'd probably go get drunk too.

6/19/2007 10:01:58 PM

yeah there is a difference to spending a lil money on booze and racking up a $200 tab at the strip club on booze and strippers. When in reality you should be buying food, clothing, transportation back to N.O , and other goods to get your feet off the ground so that you can resume working.

If the gov't gave me $1500 i would probably buy a case of beer. But I am not going to waste it all on the bars, pizza, hotels when in reality I have no home and no personal belongings any more


[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 10:05 PM. Reason : l]

6/19/2007 10:03:52 PM

Im pretty sure howard was kidding and just spouting off the same excuses that are always given for peoples bad decisions.

Anyone remember that katrina guy in NYC, where he refused the leave the hotel and due to squaters laws they couldnt force him to leave. All he did was sit around watching haley berry movies...so funny. Was in the hotel for like 9 months or something ridiculous.

6/19/2007 10:09:57 PM

i hear you. i wouldn't waste all the money either.

but really, as was stated above, when people aren't used to having money and/or never really learned how to spend it responsibly, there's gonna be some waste. i was not one bit suprised that the victims of katrina blew the money given to them. at the same time, though, there's also kids who grow up having mommy and daddy buying them everything they want who rack up massive amounts of unecessary credit card debt when they're off on their own. similar idea.

6/19/2007 10:12:39 PM

^not so much. I see your point, but they rarely rely on the taxpayers to support them. If someone wants to be worthless, fine by me, just dont expect me to pay for it. And since we reward "poor" people for reproducing, are we that surprised thats what they do?

6/19/2007 10:16:29 PM

man, I wish I could get another 3rd of my income just for doing what I am supposed to do. And potentially tax-free at that! freaking ridiculous

6/19/2007 10:23:15 PM

are you saying that poor people shouldn't reproduce? or are you saying that poor people generally reproduce only because they get bigger welfare checks?

i personally have no problem with my tax dollars going to help the poor. not saying the programs we have in place are perfect, or that i think we should pay parents for attending PTA meetings. but in general, i believe that people who are born into poverty have a much more difficult time becoming successful than those who aren't, and as a society it's a good thing to try to shrink that gap. i've met many people who live/grew up below the poverty line who work hard, but still need some help from the government from time to time. whether this is through welfare, subsidized loans, scholarships, school lunches, etc, it doesn't matter. and as someone who has been pretty lucky, i'm cool with some of my earnings going to help. but that's just me, i understand not everyone feels that way.

6/19/2007 10:33:15 PM

and so you should have the option of donating to charity to help said people.

Here is the main problem as I see it. Most "educated" people have as many kids as they can afford to raise. Im in my late twenties and my wife is going back to school, so with my debt we cant afford to have kids right now. Contrast that with my pretester who is 24, having her second kid, and wants more. Which is fine, however, she is also trying to find away to get on the system. They figured out that with her husbands income, once they have the third kid they will officially qualify. So we encourage people who really cant afford them to have more, to get more "benefits". So the amount of resources that a family can provide to raise a child decreases.

So you have the entitlement mindset, in which you will be provided housing, food, ins., gas money, etc. THen reward you with more money for the kids. Dont forget to claim your kids have ADD either, thats more money we will give you. So now they make more money, err babies, raise them on ADD meds, for the money, dont really raise them and we wonder why entitlments are rising at a scary rate.

Its simple math.

You see the entitlement society is like a cancer. Normal cells in the body reach a homostasis when they reach thier limits and resources. Cancer cells dont stop reproducing, they dont stop at thier limits. They simply continue to reproduce, consuming more resources while providing NO function. Eventually they kill the host due to thier massive amounts of resources which causes the working parts of the body to cease function.

Just the way i see it. Im sure some will get a laugh out of it, but its scary true.

6/19/2007 10:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Most "educated" people have as many kids as they can afford to raise."

i'm pretty sure that's not true.

Quote :

"Dont forget to claim your kids have ADD either, thats more money we will give you."

in what fantasy land do they give you money for having a kid with ADD?

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 11:08:43 PM

Quote :

"i've met many people who live/grew up below the poverty line who work hard, but still need some help from the government from time to time. whether this is through welfare, subsidized loans, scholarships, school lunches, etc, it doesn't matter. and as someone who has been pretty lucky, i'm cool with some of my earnings going to help. but that's just me, i understand not everyone feels that way."

The problem is, the government does a pretty shitty job at making investments. That is, if you were a publicly held company (or, a government), and your investors (the taxpayers) expected you to turn a profit (turning poor people into successful people), and you didn't (poor people blowing your tax money and not getting out of their hole because of laziness, stupidity, etc), you would stop investing in that company, and that company would go out of business.

I too am a firm believer that some people need help from time to time, but I don't think we should put them on a permanent support system. If poor person/family X gets cut off from the government programs, they have to turn to friends, family, and church for support. These organizations don't have blank checks to give to them like the government does (thanks to you and I as taxpayers) and they will demand more return on their investment or else they'll be cut off.

Well then what happens? Those people turn to crime and it is still a burden on society (shifted from tax to crime). But it is probably a lot cheaper to round these people up and force them as part of their punishment to work, or just incarcerate them so at the very least they can't procreate and continue the cycle of poor that they are currently living in.

6/19/2007 11:15:21 PM

I agree, blind hate.

sarijoul, the fantasy land of the USA apparently. It seems to be a world you know little about. LOL, wisdom comes with time.

Yes, its sad, but our govt pays these kids(actually the families) disability if they have ADD. So big shocker, all the caid kids I see all have ADD... amazing. I would imagine the numbers of kids with ADD also shot up like a rocket when the figured out another revenue stream. Yeah, to hell with the kids taking meds they dont need, we got paid.

Oh and here is a friendly website to help you get on it. Just go to disabilitysecrets.com

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/adhd-attention-deficit-social-security-disability.html

This way you can encourage your kid to do bad in school, so you can get more money. Typical.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 11:36:54 PM

you're going to have to do a little better than "disability-secrets.com"

6/19/2007 11:44:35 PM

what am I your teacher? What else do you need to figure out?

Here you go: From the social security website:

The Zebley court case in 1990 resulted in new disability criteria for deciding claims for SSI disabled children's benefits. The new criteria centered on the functioning of the child (for example, age-appropriate behavior), and the program saw awards to children increase dramatically and the number of SSI child recipients more than triple between 1989 (before Zebley) and 1995. A significant portion of the increase in awards involved mental disorders other than mental retardation, with much attention directed at awards based on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and various mental disorders manifesting themselves in maladaptive behaviors.

Welfare reform legislation passed by Congress in 1996 changed the definition of disability for SSI children, eliminating the individualized functional assessment and certain references to maladaptive behaviors in the mental listings that had been in place since 1991, pursuant to the Zebley decision. This change established a listings-level standard for disabled children under the SSI program that could be expected to reduce awards. However, the number of SSI awards to children for mental disorders began increasing again after 1997, and in 2003 reached an all-time high.



And imagine that. As soon as they figured out a new paycheck, the numbers tripled. But I guess our testing methods just improved.

6/19/2007 11:51:29 PM

to a whopping less than 100,000 kids getting benefits for any mental disorders (excluding retardation). man that 1 in 3000 families is really putting us all out.

6/19/2007 11:54:45 PM

Quote :

"are you saying that poor people shouldn't reproduce?"

Poor people they should not be able to exponentially reproduce on the avg taxpayers dime. Tax credits and deductions are one thing. But i do not think those who can not even support themselves should be rewarded with additional $$$ for having more children. I agree with eyedrb. Not only does this encourage people to have children but statistically it increases the numbers of future Americans who will be living on the system and unproductive in society. With all the technology of the today and advances in civilization over the last 100 years I am sickened at the ignorance and straight up trashiness of lower class US society. Let's face it, there is definitely those who through hard work manage to escape poverty and the socio-economic class they were raised in. On average though lower class members that are burdens on society tend to breed future people who will be a drain on society versus those who manage to work hard and succeed or in higher socio-economic status. As the saying goes the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. All it takes is a trip to Myrtle Beach for me to realize I am grateful that I was raised in a middle class home with parents that have an college education, working hard to provide my sister and I a chance at a good life.

Quote :

"so you should have the option of donating to charity to help said people."

I hold a libertarian political view but the one thing i disagree with is charity replacing the gov't in some circumstances for helping those in need. I do not support the gov't as a crutch or welfare state but do think there are times when people deserve help. Examples include natural disasters, a father of 4 just laid off who needs money while actively searching for employment, and those trying to improve there lives and need tuition assistance to go to a university etc.



[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:08 AM. Reason : l]

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 12:06:55 AM

^wow. So I guess you live in that dream world where people actually get money for thier kids having ADHD? LOL

Oh, and some more info for you. Then Im done with you. Ill tell you this, that about 75% of medicaid kids I see are labeled ADHD. And that is sad, and there is a reason for it.

And as for your numbers:

"The financial incentive to have a child labeled as having ADHD is powerful. Under the SSI program- which provides cash benefits to low-income elderly and disabled - an eligible family stands to get more than $450 a month for each child on the program. All but seven states add an average $110 a month into the pot. And once on SSI, families can get access to Medicaid and food stamps. "The result of the changes is clear. "In '89, children citing mental impairments that include ADHD, but not retardation, made up only 5% of all the disabled kids on SSI. That figure rose to nearly 25% by '95. "The new, looser rules also invite fraud, critics charge. "'We found that parents were actually coaching the children to do poorly in school and just basically act weird' to get on the SSI rolls, said Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla." p. A2, John Merline, "Public Schools: Pushing Drugs?" pp A1 & A2, Investor's Business Daily, Oct. 16, 1997 ADHD: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


Here is a good article to further your education tonight.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_672.shtml

6/20/2007 12:08:47 AM

like most things, i guess opinions on this topic are based on whatever exposure you've had in your life.

my belief, based on some close friendships and 6 years of mentoring at-risk youth, is that more often than not the cycle of poverty is driven by lack of awareness of opportunities and a lack of resources/support to take advantage of them. i don't believe that government programs alone can solve these problems, but if designed correctly they can help. and really, if rewarding some families for having "welfare children" is the worst side effect of a program intended to put food in the mouths of other children, that's still a much better use of funds than our current war in iraq, re-building I-40, etc.

that being said, i re-emphasize that i DO NOT think that paying parents for their kids getting good grades is a good idea. "what do you want, a cookie?? you SUPPOSED to encourage your child to get good grades!!!"


^^ and HUR, come on man. that's some close-minded thinking right there. yes, thank God you had a good home. now you can sit there and piss on those who didn't. good for you buddy.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ..]

6/20/2007 12:11:22 AM

Quote :

"^ wow. So I guess you live in that dream world where people actually get money for thier kids having ADHD? LOL"

?

6/20/2007 12:12:28 AM

Hur, that was directed toward sarijour when he asked "in what fantasy land do they give you money for having a kid with ADD?"

So I answered him.

I agree with you about govt steping in to help out when needed. We dont provide enough help for our working poor and instead continue to reward the nonworking "poor". If you think we should continue to support those who choose not to do anything to support themselves, fine.. do so through a charity, not tax payer money. That was the point I was trying to make with the charity example.

6/20/2007 12:16:17 AM

Quote :

"are you saying that poor people shouldn't reproduce? "

Yes.

What is so hard about this concept that people seem completely unwilling to face it. As a parent, you have a responsibility for the welfare of your child INCLUDING being able to afford the necessities of raising the child. If you can't afford to feed and care for your child, you are NEGLECTING your child. You should not be reproducing if you can not afford to reproduce without outside assistance. If you can barely afford to pay for your own life, what in the hell makes you think you can afford a child? What right do you have to subject a child to that sort of life? For that matter, what reasonable person would even consider bringing a child into a life where their own parents can not afford to provide even the basic of neccesities for them?

6/20/2007 12:23:02 AM

I agree with you, however I dont think that a family line should stop bc of being poor. I think we should pay for one, then mandatory birthcontrol if you are on the system. While I dont think your family line should stop, I dont see any reason to throw your responsibility on tax payers.(well, other than that one)

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 12:25:22 AM

One reason why folks don't come to PTA meetings is cause they have to work. Also there are folks that simply don't appreciate/value education at all...it just doesn't seem practical to them.

I wouldn't oppose having meals served at PTA meetings where you could bring your family and eat over the business of school. Parents could attend the meeting and get themselves and their kids some free grub.

But paying them? That doesn't sound right...but on the other hand, what if it works?

As it is, it's difficult for certain folks to see the value in the education. They need to pay the bills and get food on the table, and at the moment, the Pythagorean Thereom (sp?) really doesn't factor in to that. The concept of going to college seems like a luxury and a waste when the kid could be working for the family...

6/20/2007 12:25:44 AM

^^^ ehhh, i disagree.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 12:28:13 AM

Shit may change when I have kids. But even as a professional engineer I doubt after working hard all day I would have little motivation to attend a PTA meeting. Little Johnny better be going to school or I will lay discipline but why do I want to show up for a meeting to listen to soccer moms bitch and moan for an hour. Good parents should not need to be paid to instill discipline or encourage their kids to do well in school. They should want this for themselves and want their childer to have a better life then they did.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 12:29:30 AM

^^How so? How is having children you can't take care of not neglect? We arrest people who have 80 cats that they can't feed on animal abuse charges, why should having a child you can't afford be any less of a crime?

Quote :

"I agree with you, however I dont think that a family line should stop bc of being poor. I think we should pay for one, then mandatory birthcontrol if you are on the system. While I dont think your family line should stop, I dont see any reason to throw your responsibility on tax payers.(well, other than that one) "

Presumeably, if your don't have a child to care for, you can spend your energy working your way out of poverty so that you can afford a child so that you can continue your line.

If poverty is a cycle, why do we want to encourage the continuation of that cycle by having people in poverty have children they can't afford?

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:32 AM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

6/20/2007 12:32:11 AM

I agree with 1337 though I think the problem is how you draw the line between those that can have children and those that can not. But yeah people should not have children that they can not afford especially when expecting an increased gov't hand out. I believe in personal freedom but when Latika has 8 kids while not working except for the work require to get in the welfare line then the gov't should step in. Maybe the solution is not "prevent" them from reproducing, but eliminate welfare "incentives" to have children then if they can not provide or neglect remove there children to an orphange/responsible relative.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:41 AM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 12:36:10 AM

Well, idealy, if you eliminate handout programs that encourage such behavior, you won't have a need to draw that line. People will decide for themselves, just as some people can live on low wages and others can burn through $1000 a month just in food for themselves, it will be the choice of the parent. The only time you will need to draw a line is when you're ready to take children away because of the neglect.

6/20/2007 12:40:20 AM

you beat me to the edit

6/20/2007 12:41:53 AM

I don't think it's that bad of an idea. Some people would abuse it, like anything else, but others wouldn't. Far too many kids I went to high school with let their grades slip because their family fell upon hard times and they absolutely had to work as many hours a week as they could. Dropping out wasn't an option for many because they'd get their license taken away and that would make it hard for them to get to work.

Something like this would've helped several of them.

6/20/2007 12:42:14 AM

why the fuck should we pay parents to do the job they are supposed to be doing which is parenting.

6/20/2007 12:44:47 AM

^^^^^^ while i personally agree with a lot of what you say in principle - that parents should ensure they can support their children without help - i understand that people have many reasons for having children, both intentionally and unintentionally. and i think as a society we should make sure all kids have food on the table, even if parents aren't as responsible as we all would hope. plus, all people are equal, and i think saying one class should reproduce and another shoudn't, is kinda cold.

i'm just glad i'm rich so i ain't gotta worry depending on y'all for supportin' my children

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 12:44:54 AM

I just pray that the Religious Right and Neocons do not have there way and eliminate abortion.
After all do we want 10 LaTikas running around. I read in a book can not remember the name off top of head that abortion being banned has a disproportionate negative effect on the poor.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 12:52:21 AM

^I'll teach a LaTika over an Aiden, Aden, Adan, Aidan, Aydan, Ayden...

6/20/2007 12:59:04 AM

I'm being dead serious. Its so easy for a bunch of rich kids to sit around and judge poor people. It doesn't matter what you would do because you aren't poor and have never been "poor". Every monster is created by a monsterous act.

6/20/2007 3:04:44 AM

^ It's also easy for an internet troll to make sweeping generalizations on people he doesn't know. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I grew up off of florida street in greensboro, first in a condemned apartment building and then in a roach-infested rental house, after a construction crew showed up with a wrecking ball. Anyone from greensboro will tell you how fucked up that area is. Nobody gave us any handouts because we were poor, and my parents didn't ask or expect it. My parents worked their asses off to support our family and broke out of poverty on their own.

It takes nothing more than a strong will and good work ethic. But it's always somebody else's fault. Fuck that.

6/20/2007 6:53:14 AM

Quote :

"yeah look at post katrina. Victims displaced by the disaster were given $1500 debit cards to buy supplied and help rebuild their lives. Where did a lot of this money go?? A nbc report a few months later documented how a lot of these people squandered this money on strip clubs, booze, and other shit not on necessities. "

These people have lost what little they had to begin with in a fucking hurricane and flood because their neighborhood was not protected properly from such an event. God forbid they should drink some beer and see some titties. Don't we judge the poor a little too harshly in America sometimes?

6/20/2007 9:32:00 AM

Quote :

" God forbid they should drink some beer and see some titties."

perhaps that money is better spent getting their lives back on track.

6/20/2007 9:33:12 AM

These people have lost what little they had to begin with in a fucking hurricane and flood because their neighborhood was not protected properly from such an event. God forbid they should drink some beer and see some titties use the free money given to them by the government (not even a loan) to help get their life back together. Don't we judge the poor a little too harshly kindly in America sometimes?

Life is all about the little choices you make. You sacrifice from one place to gain in another. I could live in a much larger place now, with more creature comforts and eat much better, but I would have no way of saving for the future or being prepared in an emergency situation. Sometimes surviving and getting on with your life means giving up the beer and titties for a little bit.

6/20/2007 9:39:20 AM

Quote :

"Don't we judge the poor a little too harshly in America sometimes? "

HELL NO.



We say its not your fault, its the rich white man's fault for holding you down. Its his fault that you got preggers in 8th grade, dropped out of high school, and work that minimum wage job.

6/20/2007 9:44:24 AM

Quote :

"HELL NO."

I don't see the majority of people in this thread saying that. Nor do I hear Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaubh, Neil Bortz, Dr. Laura, and many many others in the so called "liberal media" say that. In fact, we live in a country where homeless people who beg for money get told "get a job you lazy bum" because their problem is that they're lazy

Quote :

"We say its not your fault, its the rich white man's fault for holding you down. Its his fault that you got preggers in 8th grade, dropped out of high school, and work that minimum wage job."

a) Not every poor person gets pregnant in 8th grade and drops out of high school.
b) Some people don't have a high school diploma because they never had a chance to finish high school
c) Middle class white kids get pregnant in high school too, but they get help from their families and are still able to finish college and live a middle class white lifestyle

I am not saying poor people bare no responsibility for their predicament, but I'm saying that arguing that it's all their fault that they're poor is about as valid as arguing that Paris Hilton is completely responsible for being rich... or that I am completely responsible for the fact that I am posting this at a job where I get paid more than the majority of American families make according to the U.S. census for that matter.

6/20/2007 10:21:44 AM

Come on people, there were a few poor idiots that lived it up with the $1500 they got, that does not mean all of them or even a majority of them behaved this way.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason : oops]

6/20/2007 10:22:39 AM

The most refreshing aspect of this idea is that they are using Private funds.

6/20/2007 10:37:51 AM

^^^ If you meet a poor person who is not responsible for their own predicament, then you go right ahead and help them. But stop trying to generalize. Some poor people are responsible for their own downfall, or for social reasons engineered their own downfall (take that mom!). Some just had tough times inflicted upon them and gave up (their wife died, so they just don't care anymore). Some are as you say, just never found an exit (lived in this trailer park all their life). Many suffer mental impairments which render them incapable of holding any complex position (the CIA is after them).

It is an odd function of life; all happy productive members of society have fairly similar reasons for being so. All unproductive members of society are that way for a wide variety of reasons.

But banish the vision you have in your head of the desperately poor family working itself to death; statistics show that males of working age living in poverty work an average of 10 hours a week. Individuals motivated enough (not suffering the above mentioned impairments) to work 50+ hours a week will not be in poverty long, thus they only have a transitory impact upon the statistics.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ^]

6/20/2007 10:43:30 AM

I know the idea of being "licenced by the state to have children" is scary to everyone. However, could it be argued that it would be in the best interest/benefit of society to enforce responsible reproduction? I'm not saying poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. What I'm suggesting is that we allow people to have kids only when they are financially able to provide a universal minimum for them (clothes, three meals a day, medical care, shelter).

I'm not against social programs that actually do more good than harm for society. But it seems like government providing a financial incentive for the uneducated, poverty-stricken poor to have MORE children is retarded. It's enhancing the problem, not making it better.

6/20/2007 10:45:29 AM