http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/08/children.wellbeing/index.html?hpt=C2

Quote :

"About 21 percent of children in the United States will be living below the poverty line in 2010, the highest rate in 20 years, according to a new analysis of children's well-being released Tuesday. The study, funded by the private philanthropy Foundation for Child Development, found that families' economic well-being has plummeted to near 1975 levels, said Kenneth Land, project coordinator and professor of sociology and demography at Duke University. "Virtually all of that progress is wiped out through job losses, through declines in real income, and other aspects of family economic well-being," Land said. The Child and Youth Well-Being Index Project at Duke University bases its predictions on 28 indicators of well-being that encompass economic well-being, safe and risky behavior, social relationships, emotional and spiritual well-being, community engagement, educational attainment and health. Researchers predict that although the index is at a low for the decade this year, it will start edging up. "There are lots of kids out there whose quality of life has already and will decline as a result of the impact of this recession," Land said. About 15.6 million children are estimated to be living in poverty this year, but study authors say this number will start going down. This year, as many as 500,000 children may be homeless in the United States, according to the report. Children living in families in which neither parent has secure employment will rise to about 20 million this year, up 4 percent from 2006. Also, many children live in households where all members do not have access to enough safe and nutritious foods. From 2007 to 2010, an additional 750,000 children are estimated to live in food-insecure households, the report said. "

BOO FUCKING HOO

All this statistic tells me is that their is more people in this country who should not be having more children.

Sure you got your struggling single mothers whose children left them and your laid off family providers who are
struggling due to the economy to find a new job. You also got people like my g/f's 2nd cousin who is on food stamps
and can barely keep his cell phone on (not having money to pay the bill) but whose wife is expecting their 8th kid.


For amusement read the comments below from people who make Obama look Conservative.

Quote :

"ryan000 Most parents have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. That is precious time away from raising children. US tax code should be changed to encourage taking care of children. $600-$3000 per year as a tax credit for child care is a pitance. "

This one though i did find amusing

Quote :

"Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em. Seriously, I cringe to think of how many poor, uneducated people (especially single mothers) are bringing children into this world to get more money off welfare. They complain that they don't have enough money, that the government isn't giving them enough, whatever. A grandmother once told her grandson, "Don't feed the sickly poor squirrels, because they'll breed if you do." Time for us to stop enabling these people. less "

6/9/2010 8:57:16 AM

because it's the kids fault their parents had them?

6/9/2010 9:01:05 AM

not to mention all these poor fucks are probably going to grow up and become cops that pull my pothead son over for no goddamn reason

6/9/2010 9:02:36 AM

Quote :

"because it's the kids fault their parents had them? "

With that philosophy we will continue trying put out a fire with pinestraw.


[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 9:23 AM. Reason : 1]

6/9/2010 9:07:44 AM

6/9/2010 9:13:39 AM

Kill everyone. Problem solved.

6/9/2010 9:20:17 AM

^

6/9/2010 9:23:12 AM

Quote :

""Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em.""

Right on.

6/9/2010 9:29:37 AM

The problem is poor people not the system that is funneling wealth to the top 1 percent

got it

6/9/2010 9:31:51 AM

A better question is what portion of those impoverished children were the result of unwanted pregnancies.

It might be surprising to some folks who assume these are all crack babies (looking at you HUR) considering how many families have been hit hard financially due to the economic downturn and went from middle class to below the poverty line as a result...

6/9/2010 9:37:30 AM

^ I am not arguing again this fact. My only concern is that this article was designed to steer opinion to encourage further increases in tax breaks and "benefits" for families. Those who are temporarily laid off are already enjoying a level of support until they get a job and those with jobs already enjoy an abundant of tax credits/breaks.

We can not keep opening the spigot though unless we want to end up like Greece.

6/9/2010 9:43:59 AM

The recession affected adults AND children? No way!

6/9/2010 9:47:30 AM

^^ Can you point me to the statement in the article that advocate for further increases in tax breaks and benefits for families? I read the entire thing, but I appear to have missed it.

6/9/2010 9:48:31 AM

The point of the article is that the portion of children living below poverty is INCREASING. For HUR's theory to make sense, that this is the fault of stupid poor people breeding too much, he would have to explain why stupid poor people are having more kids now than before.

In reality, this more likely caused by the fact that families that were above the poverty line a few years ago are slipping below the poverty line.

6/9/2010 9:49:18 AM

Quote :

"We can not keep opening the spigot though unless we want to end up like Greece."

Yeah if Greece had a problem that led to its downfall, it's charity and social justice

6/9/2010 10:14:15 AM

Quote :

"The problem is poor people not the system that is funneling wealth to the top 1 percent got it"

I think that's a little bit of an oversimplification...

1. the "system" funnels wealth away from the top...just not as much as some people want

2. the top 1% are in that position because they're smart enough to direct more wealth to themselves than the "system" can take away from them. Good for them.

3. Poor people do cause shitloads of problems, and subsidizing the childbearing of poor dumbasses via large tax credits only hurts.


...but

4. Children have no choice in the matter--nobody asked them if they wanted to be born to people who had their shit together, or dysfunctional retards with no money. I have no problem with helping children to the extent we can (from an ethical perspective as well as a practical perspective to try to get some of them to join the A-team.)


oh, and welfare abuse is frustrating and rightfully spurs a lot of impassioned response, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's a drop in the bucket. There are lots of other places we ought to be looking first to tighten up the budget. To an extent, welfare is a whipping boy.

6/9/2010 10:47:28 AM

^ what he said

6/9/2010 10:52:55 AM

The need for welfare would dramatically decrease if we fixed the education system. With some upfront investments you can take these excess children, who are a long term drain in the current system, and turn them into a net gain over the long term. The children get good lives, the economy gets better workers, everyone goes home happy. All we need is someone with the will to take a hatchet to failing schools and their staff and start implementing some of the stuff that we know works.

6/9/2010 11:05:22 AM

^

6/9/2010 11:08:36 AM

HUR is right, we should sterilize poor people. I propose a new law that states you can only have a child if you make more than $25,000 per year.

6/9/2010 11:10:58 AM

Quote :

"The problem is poor people not the system that is funneling wealth to the top 1 percent who are primarily older and not in their child bearing/raising years got it"

6/9/2010 11:11:02 AM

^^^^ agreed.

I thought you were going to argue for bathing the problem in more money, but you nailed it.



[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ^ Goddamn it, taxes should not be an instrument of social engineering]

6/9/2010 11:11:41 AM

I just love how the richest 1% have everyone fooled into thinking it's a great thing to keep padding their pockets.

You fools.

6/9/2010 11:13:22 AM

Quote :

"^ Goddamn it, taxes should not be an instrument of social engineering"

agreed. and so hopefully we can also agree that corporate welfare is as big or bigger problem than personal welfare?

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM. Reason : d]

6/9/2010 11:14:12 AM

absolutely

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM. Reason : and farm subsidies...and so on]

6/9/2010 11:17:49 AM

Is there no correlation between the declining wealth of the middle class/increased wealth of top 1% and corporate welfare?



[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : d]

6/9/2010 11:23:21 AM

Quote :

"The need for welfare would dramatically decrease if we fixed the education system. With some upfront investments you can take these excess children, who are a long term drain in the current system, and turn them into a net gain over the long term"

I 100% agree. The problem is the government (local/state/federal) keeps increasing "benefits" programs while slashing educational budgets.

6/9/2010 12:09:32 PM

Quote :

"I just love how the richest 1% have everyone fooled into thinking it's a great thing to keep padding their pockets. You fools."

And your solution is to funnel that money to the government.

I've got an idea. Why don't you give away every penny you can? After all, you're white and middle class, and you benefit more than anyone from institutionalized racism. Why not give someone else a chance?

6/9/2010 12:22:57 PM

Wasn't talking to me. Whoops.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2010 12:25:51 PM

Quote :

"Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em."

this is what it boils down to...you have the "right" to have 20 if you want, but if you can't support them at the time you conceive, you should have your child taken away and you should be sterilized because you're too fucking stupid to be allowed to continue breeding

i absolutely sympathize with those who had every reason to believe they could support their family but whose situation changed for the worse (losing a job, spouse dying/leaving, whatever), but those who have children knowing damn good and well they can't take care of it (or them) without government assistance have NO right to have kids

and yes, i realize money does not make parents GOOD parents...but at least those with money can (generally) keep their children from starving without aid from everyone else

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2010 1:58:43 PM

Quote :

"this is what it boils down to...you have the "right" to have 20 if you want, but if you can't support them at the time you conceive, you should have your child taken away and you should be sterilized because you're too fucking stupid to be allowed to continue breeding i absolutely sympathize with those who had every reason to believe they could support their family but whose situation changed for the worse (losing a job, spouse dying/leaving, whatever), but those who have children knowing damn good and well they can't take care of it (or them) without government assistance have NO right to have kids "

I do not know why this concept is so fucking hard for hardcore liberals to understand.

6/9/2010 2:33:21 PM

How many of them are like this?

From another message board I am on...

Quote :

"So I bought a tract of timber yesterday. This family was about as poor as they come. Grandmother, mother, son and wife, along with their daughter, all living in a single wide trailer, all unemployed. I was speaking to the mother when she asked if I would give her son a job, before I could answer she yells for him to come out of his room to meet someone who may have a job for him. He yells back "Mom, I'm in the middle of Call of Duty! Tell him to come back later!" She yells again and he comes out, a 1pm looking like he just rolled out of bed, stinking and just looking like a fat slob. So he shows me the property lines, the whole time looking like an idiot mouth breather with an IQ of 60. Dumb ass was telling me how he couldn't find a job he liked. (He looked about 23 maybe and had the appearance of someone who hadn't worked a day in their life.) I get back to their trailer and they were saying how the food stamps weren't cutting it that they needed more money. I looked around and saw about 3 cartons of cheap cigarettes on one table, 5 cases of Mtn. Dew stacked in a corner along with an equal amount of Natural Lite. At that time every ill feeling of the entitlement/deadbeat class welled up inside me. I offered them about 1/3 of what the timber was worth and they jumped at the number like a bunch of rats. I feel bad when I see destitution, however when I see people living a lifestyle that is of their choosing, my compassion becomes non-existent. "

Then of course there's also this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23kristof.html


...and this...
http://jcrue.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/health-care-or-designer-jeans-protein-powder-40-oz/

6/9/2010 2:41:27 PM

headline is misleading. it should say "more children with low quality of life"

6/9/2010 3:34:21 PM

^+1

6/9/2010 3:59:13 PM

Quality of life? It's all relative.

poor children != sad children

I grew up on rice and sugar cubes. I thought it tasted great! Besides, there are advantages to being poor.

FACT: The only people complaining about people being poor, is non-poor people. Poor people don't complain about their poorness. At least, not from my experience living in a poor families and around poor neighborhoods.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM. Reason : bling bling]

6/9/2010 4:41:57 PM

Quote :

"I do not know why this concept is so fucking hard for hardcore liberals to understand."

Sterilizing the poor and regulating the number of children they have almost sounds like something out of "A Modest Proposal". No civilized human being should support that.

But why don't we actually look at the problem in terms of how to solve it rather than ways we can make ourselves feel better about doing nothing about it? Given the same environment, people are just as likely to succeed, regardless of income, lineage, or race. Equality of the ends will exist with TRUE equality of the means.

6/9/2010 6:22:26 PM

Quote :

"How many of them are like this?"

I bet most. Poor uneducated people the world over are similar.

This is so maddening and frustrating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23kristof.html

6/9/2010 6:31:59 PM

^^while I agree with the statement that in the same environment people will succeed at equal rates...part of their environment is the household they grow up in. Taking the children from some of those people may actually help those kids in the long run.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM. Reason : effing carrots]

6/9/2010 6:33:27 PM

Quote :

"FACT: The only people complaining about people being poor, is non-poor people. Poor people don't complain about their poorness. At least, not from my experience living in a poor families and around poor neighborhoods."

Sure they do. I know this, having grown up poor. However, some choose to do something about it while the others do not.

Ultimately education is a huge key, but there is also something to be said for cultivating work ethic in people. I'd like to see mandatory birth control if you collect welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. When you pick up your check you get a BC shot, when you stop collecting the checks you stop getting the check. Nothing immoral or horrid about that. Granted, it'll never even be considered because people will say it's racist, the Catholic church will rail against it, and so on. It's my relatively simple solution to a large problem, but i know it's a pipe dream.

Look, a lot of poor people are poor due to shitty decision making and it's ultimately their own damned fault. Children, as people have stated over and over have not choice in the matter. It's not an easy problem to solve.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM. Reason : asdfsadf]

6/9/2010 7:03:38 PM

Quote :

"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23kristof.html"

This article is sad. I'm sure we all wish that the individuals mentioned would make more responsible decisions. However, the easy reaction, to claim superiority in ethics or personal discipline, is at least logically false. The truth is, people in civilized countries aren't given the opportunity to make such terribly short-sighted, adolescent decisions. In America, you can't choose to spend your kid's school money on gin and a prostitute. Uncle Same involuntarily took that money through taxes, built a school, hired some teachers, and legally required your child to attend.

6/9/2010 7:13:34 PM

^ lower class people in the US throw away plenty of money on booze, cell phones, car mods, etc, that they could be spending on their kids (stationery, healthy food, educational toys, books, etc.).

6/9/2010 7:37:15 PM

Quote :

"Look, a lot of poor people are poor due to shitty decision making and it's ultimately their own damned fault. Children, as people have stated over and over have not choice in the matter. It's not an easy problem to solve."

I don't think anyone has any choice in the matter. It's no more of a choice for a person to make those bad decisions than it is for the fly to go towards a bug zapper. The goal is to put people into environments that will cause them to succeed.

6/9/2010 7:43:53 PM

Quote :

"welfare abuse is frustrating and rightfully spurs a lot of impassioned response, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's a drop in the bucket. There are lots of other places we ought to be looking first to tighten up the budget. To an extent, welfare is a whipping boy."

/thread

6/9/2010 8:28:29 PM

It doesn't matter who it is having the kids. Plus, educated women don't even tend to have kids. Point is, not kid should have to live in poverty. Theres plenty of resources to go around.

6/9/2010 9:57:45 PM

^ Feel free to donate all your resources. Being taxed 30% is more than enough from my paycheck....

6/9/2010 10:34:24 PM

The problem here is that the "poverty line" is way too high.

6/9/2010 11:58:40 PM

hey HUR...


























I'm glad we agree here. That's all.

6/10/2010 12:37:43 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter who it is having the kids. Plus, educated women don't even tend to have kids. Point is, not kid should have to live in poverty. Theres plenty of resources to go around."

Educated women have less children than poor, broke-ass, uneducated women? There's a newsflash - thanks.

The problem is that smarter, wealthier people have less kids (but these kids grow up to be smarter, better kids on average) and poor people have more kids. This is not anything new nor is it anything that can be argued. Read Freakonomics. Legal abortion = drop in crime rate. Hmmmm.

Of course, as the leaders of society have less and less kids and the dregs have the most kids, then middle class gets increasingly cut out, resulting in an even greater dichotomy between the classes.

Yes, this is a generalization, but I'd be willing to bet that these demographics are accurate...

[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

6/10/2010 12:50:39 AM

I'm not totally sure, but I'd guess that the continued decline of manufacturing and other relatively high paying "blue collar" jobs has probably added to the income disparity. Now you pretty much have white collar jobs, and no collar jobs. There just aren't that many options out there for someone to make a good living without going to college.

6/10/2010 1:20:29 AM

Good thing someone invented a progressive tax system, public schools, public healthcare and now all we have to do is funnel the money from the rich and into services and education for these children.

I don't favor 'welfare queens' but I do favor 'welfare children' if you will.

6/10/2010 1:22:25 AM