Quote :

"Give me an example where this isn't the case."

The lady I've been talking about. She has a job. She works hard and doesn't break the law or abuse drugs. What's wrong with her?

3/5/2007 1:48:54 PM

Did she go to college?
Were her two kids accidents or were they planned?

3/5/2007 2:01:04 PM

I'm sorry. I forgot the only people who matter went to college and abstained from sex.

3/5/2007 2:08:47 PM

I was just giving an example to back up

Quote :

"poor people are poor because they've done something wrong"

3/5/2007 2:12:29 PM

What's wrong about having children and not going to college?

She only has 2 kids. It's not like she's a baby machine or something.

And college isn't for everyone. Some people aren't any good at it...they shouldn't have to be poor if they're still providing something to society. I mean, like food service people get paid absolute shit, but they're in food service! They handle our food; they handle what we put into our bodies, and society just doesn't appreciate this as a valuable enough service for them to make a decent living. That's bullshit.

Doing something wrong would be like if she sold drugs or robbed a gas station.

3/5/2007 2:24:51 PM

I guess you could argue there is nothing wrong with it, but in most cases, you should be prepared for a life of low paying jobs and living to paycheck to paycheck if you choose to take that route.

Same thing with the kids. Two kids are fine, but haveing two unplanned kids you can not reasonably afford isn't the wisest of decisions. There is definately something "wrong" with this choice.

Quote :

"That's bullshit."

So, what do you want? Minimum wage to double?

3/5/2007 2:29:53 PM

brig. I think the point he is trying to make is that she shouldnt expect to get paid like a professional without being a professional. Hell, bill gates dropped out of college, there are plenty of people that make a ton of money having never had gone to college. However, that is more the exception than the rule. She is basically doing unskilled labor, which is needed, but the pay isnt that of skilled workers.

Free daycare sounds nice. I suppose there are plenty of people that are willing to watch other people's kids for free too? Free cars also sound great. Someone has to pay for these services. States provide free childcare to the poor, yet another benefit of being poor and not saving.

3/5/2007 2:31:34 PM

Quote :

"What's wrong about having children and not going to college? She only has 2 kids. It's not like she's a baby machine or something. And college isn't for everyone."

And being rich isn't for everyone either...people make their own decisions and deal with their own choices...are there some people who are poor who have worked hard and just not gotten any breaks? Sure...are there some people who are poor because they are too lazy to try and make something better for themselves? Sure

3/5/2007 2:36:19 PM

^I'm not talking about being rich. I'm talking about having enough money to care for your kids and retire at age 65.

Quote :

"eyedrb: Free daycare sounds nice. I suppose there are plenty of people that are willing to watch other people's kids for free too? Free cars also sound great. Someone has to pay for these services. States provide free childcare to the poor, yet another benefit of being poor and not saving."

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Free quality daycare and pre-school for anyone who wants or needs it is where I'd start."

People who aren't poor can use it, too. If all of a sudden, financially successful people stop saving and investing money cause they get free daycare, I'll buy into your idea that assistance encourages people to be lazy and irresponsible.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2007 2:46:45 PM

Nothing is free...who is paying for the daycare, all taxpayers? Or maybe just the taxpayers who can afford to pay for free daycare?

Also caring for your kids and retiring at 65 is a nice goal for everyone and should be attainable...but let me ask

The lady you keep referring too...who has 2 kids, a job, and isnt too well off financially...whats her story? Did the father of the kids leave or something? Just trying to get a little background info

3/5/2007 2:51:09 PM

brid, so WHO pays for the childcare? If its FREE for all to use, why would you pay for a product when you can get it for free? Someone has to pay for it. Nothing is free.

I tell you what brid, start up your own FREE childcare center, open to all. See how long that keeps your doors open. It cant

3/5/2007 2:54:37 PM

^,^^Free, as in subsidized by the government, by tax-payers.

Quote :

"The lady you keep referring too...who has 2 kids, a job, and isnt too well off financially...whats her story? Did the father of the kids leave or something? Just trying to get a little background info"

I used her story, but it's important for people to recognize that it's not like her experience is unique. Many people are in her position.

And the father of at least one of her children split. I assumed her 6-year-old was also by him, but I'm not sure. The father had a good job at one point (since he moved down here for it), but we don't know much about him now.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2007 3:05:23 PM

Well I don't know...maybe she can get a 2nd job...get a better job...deal with her decisions to have children without planning on caring for them (unless she was raped)

Quote :

"Free, as in subsidized by the government, by tax-payers."

you mean Free, as in not free because we pay for it...no thanks...I don't think me, as someone with no kids at the moment, should have to pay for other people's childcare because they chose to have kids and can't afford to take care of them...the govt cant provide everything for everyone

3/5/2007 3:10:02 PM

I want a Lexus and cannot afford one. Bridget, will you help me pay my car payment?

3/5/2007 3:14:53 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: Well I don't know...maybe she can get a 2nd job...get a better job...deal with her decisions to have children without planning on caring for them (unless she was raped)"

She does have a second job. And she is dealing with her decisions.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: you mean Free, as in not free because we pay for it...no thanks...I don't think me, as someone with no kids at the moment, should have to pay for other people's childcare because they chose to have kids and can't afford to take care of them...the govt cant provide everything for everyone"

I have a friend who hasn't driving in over a year---should she get some of her taxes back since she doesn't use the roads? None of my friends have children...we shouldn't have to pay for public education. The fact is that even when we don't use a service, it can still improve our lives. My friend who doesn't drive or use the roads runs a lot; you better believe she appreciates the roads that help truck drivers deliver her snazzy new running shoes. I appreciate public education cause it means our children won't end up completely ignorant and they also have a place to go during the day (I don't want them working and taking jobs that adults need during the day.)

If you don't feel a moral obligation to help the poor, then you should at least be able to appreciate in a practical sense how helping others improves your own life.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ^Cute.]

3/5/2007 3:29:24 PM

our govt is going bankrupt from entitlement programs. Expanding govt subsidized childcare seems like a quicker way to get it there. I agree, why no free lexus? and by "free" i mean taxpayers pay for those who dont work. Sounds fair

3/5/2007 3:29:46 PM

^See. You're still stuck on this idea that poor people don't work.

I can't argue with someone whose perception looks nothing like reality.

3/5/2007 3:31:32 PM

the difference between a "service" and a "common good" are profoundly confused in your mind. Roads are common goods (and paid by a gas tax, which only people who drive and use the roads pay). Food stamps is not a common good and I frankly believe in a minimalized role for paying for people's food. The woman who has three children and is working three jobs to make ends meet and can't afford to feed her kids, ok, lets help her out. Everyone else, get a job or another one.


Here's something to think about. ALL of these problems would mostly go away if the government would mandate.... birth control.


DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T/WON'T AFFORD THEM. A MINIMUM WAGE JOB CAN FEE ONE MOUTH EASILY.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 3:36:06 PM

We should have income brackets which define how many children you can have.


Sounds cruel? No it sounds just to me... you're preventing children from coming into the world and being hungry and dirty.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 3:37:25 PM

no there are plenty of working poor in this country. To me they are more valueable than those who choose not to contribute and work. However, how the system is set up, you are penalized for working.

Ok brid. If i chose to stop working, blow my savings on stuff I want and take the system. I would be provided house, food, healthcare, childcare(if i needed it), gas money( to find a new job. LOL).

Where as if, like your girl, is working she basically doesnt qualify for these things. In fact her tax money would go to help fund these programs for people not working. Seem fair? So its not "free" as you put it, it hurts working people. see my point?

3/5/2007 3:39:38 PM

I still want bridget to help me pay for the lexus that I cannot afford.

3/5/2007 3:47:26 PM

Quote :

"O: the difference between a "service" and a "common good" are profoundly confused in your mind. Roads are common goods (and paid by a gas tax, which only people who drive and use the roads pay). Food stamps is not a common good and I frankly believe in a minimalized role for paying for people's food. The woman who has three children and is working three jobs to make ends meet and can't afford to feed her kids, ok, lets help her out. Everyone else, get a job or another one."

Do you consider education a common good? Why not childcare and pre-school?

Quote :

"O: Here's something to think about. ALL of these problems would mostly go away if the government would mandate.... birth control."

Reproductive rights are important to me, and why don't we just sterilize poor people!

(So is birth control a common good now?)

^Still not funny or poignant.

(Lexuses are tacky, by the way. Trash.)

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2007 3:49:05 PM

Quote :

"Do you consider education a common good? Why not childcare and pre-school?"

Yes education is a common good. Because everyone goes to school. Not everyone goes to childcare (only the children of the poor single parents, or the ones who don't have parents that care enough to let strangers raise their kids).


Oh yes, reproductive rights. IF YOU FUCKING REPRODUCE THEN DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR YOUR CUM SHOT.

I have rights too, you know. It is my right not to have to pick up someone else's tab.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 3:52:26 PM

Quote :

"Not everyone goes to childcare (only the children of the poor single parents, or the ones who don't have parents that care enough to let strangers raise their kids)."

Did your caring mother teach you this bullshit?

You just showed your ass. No more responses to you.

3/5/2007 3:55:49 PM

did you just make up those quotes from me?

And I grew up in daycare. My mother was a nurse and had wierd hours. We werent what i consider "poor", but we did without alot. I dont think there is anything wrong with daycares. I do have a problem that in general people that work have to pay for thier childcare, why people who dont work receive free childcare.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 3:56:38 PM

^My bad. I cited them wrong.

3/5/2007 3:58:09 PM

Quote :

"AHA. I love the way you try to characterize her as this selfish, narcissistic person... That's hilarious. "

What would you characterize her actions as? She still has many other options to use to assist in her care for her children that she has not used. Why? What would you call someone who willingly subjects their child to various forms of neglect? According to you she can not afford to take care of her children and have no family or friends to assist her in this. If her kids have the chance at a better life if she temporarily gave them up, wouldnt' you consider it selfish for her to not do so? From what you said, she works almost every day and presumeably most of the day so it's not like she has much interaction with her children as is. It seems to me that giving them to the temporary care of a relative or friend wouldnt' be much of a change and would certainly help her and them much more than continuing to live as you say they are now.

Quote :

"Why can't you admit that some people bust their asses and never get ahead?"

Because you still haven't shown that she has exploited all avenues of support for herself. I've asked before and I will ask again: Where are her parents and why hasn't she moved back home? Where are her friends and how come she can't move in with any? Why hasn't she looked into religious based child care which would be provided at a lower cost to her than normal care? Why hasnt' she asked if any of her work can be done from home? Why hasn't she used the power of the internet to try and connect herself with someone in a similar situation (since as you say, she is not unique) and partnered with them to work through the problem? WHY IS IT SHE HAD TWO CHILDREN BY A MAN SHE WAS NOT MARRIED TO AND IS STILL FUCKING AROUND? Because busting your ass and working to better your life are not the same thing.

Quote :

"What interest do you have in asserting that poor people are poor because they've done something wrong, because they're somehow defective?"

I have no interest in asserting poor people are defective. I do have interest in ensuring that poor people have exploited all possible avenues of support before turning to MY money to be taken by force.

Quote :

"And, by the way, making lengthy responses to me doesn't make you right. It's just that many more words you use to be wrong."

You haven't yet shown me to be wrong because you haven't answered the relevant questions to her gaps in support.

Quote :

"What's wrong about having children and not going to college?"

When you don't have the means to support yourself and said kids? Lots of things.

Quote :

"She only has 2 kids. It's not like she's a baby machine or something."

You budgeted CONDOMS for her.

Quote :

"And college isn't for everyone. Some people aren't any good at it..."

Parenting isn't for everyone. Some people aren't any good at it...

Quote :

"they shouldn't have to be poor if they're still providing something to society."

WHY? And you know what, she wouldn't exaclt be poor if she didn't make the mistake of having TWO children by a man she wasn't married to and leaving home to follow said man. She makes a salary of ~24k a year. That's not horrible for someone with no college degree. It's not great but it's certainly liveable.

Quote :

"I mean, like food service people get paid absolute shit, but they're in food service! They handle our food; they handle what we put into our bodies, and society just doesn't appreciate this as a valuable enough service for them to make a decent living. That's bullshit. "

Unskilled, non manual labor will always pay shit. Here's a question for you: Are you willing to pay the money it would cost so that everyone at taco bell makes $15 / hour?

Quote :

"I used her story, but it's important for people to recognize that it's not like her experience is unique. Many people are in her position. "

The position have not having tried all possible avenues of support before asking the government to take money by force from people who have no responsibility towards her or her children? And you wonder why people think that most poor aren't trying hard enough.

Quote :

"And the father of at least one of her children split. I assumed her 6-year-old was also by him, but I'm not sure"

So now it's possible that she's had two children by two different fathers. And you don't think she's done something wrong here?

Quote :

"She does have a second job. And she is dealing with her decisions. "

Why hasn't she moved home yet?

Quote :

"I have a friend who hasn't driving in over a year---should she get some of her taxes back since she doesn't use the roads? ... My friend who doesn't drive or use the roads runs a lot; you better believe she appreciates the roads that help truck drivers deliver her snazzy new running shoes."

Sounds to me like she uses the roads then.

Quote :

"If you don't feel a moral obligation to help the poor, then you should at least be able to appreciate in a practical sense how helping others improves your own life. "

I fail to see how helping a mother who has continued to make many mistakes and still does not use the resources at her disposal in any way shape or form improves my life. It's actually a detriment to my life because I personally could use the money the government takes from my taxes each moth. It would help me afford better health care AND help me save and invest, giving me an opportunity to get further ahead in life. And FWIW I make less than she does and support another person.

Quote :

"^See. You're still stuck on this idea that poor people don't work. "

There are certain government programs that discourage you from working. The other person I support is disabled and has difficulty holding down a job because of it (14 jobs in 2 years). If they tried to get government assistance, there is a wage and hours cap, and any job that pays more than ~$8 / hr or works them more than about 20-25 hrs a week (it's been a while since I last looked at the numbers, they may have changed) would disqualify them from the program AND cost more money to us than using the government assistance and having them not work. IOW if they worked for 30 hrs a week at $7.50 /hr, they would actually bring in less money to this home than if they didn't work and collected the assistance.

3/5/2007 3:58:49 PM

aww did you cut me off? I was a product of daycare. It is NOT the way you should raise a child.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 3:59:49 PM

The same conservatives that argue against social welfare programs are the same ones that take in hundreds of billions of dollars a year in government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, direct payments and grossly overpriced & no-bid contracts. If people were really up in arms about the economic costs of social welfare programs, they would be down right infuriated at corporate welfare.

Instead of arguing that social welfare is allowing poor people to buy alcohol and cigarettes off tax dollars, perhaps we should be more outraged that tax dollars are paying for Ferraris, yachts and beach houses for the rich.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 4:02:08 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: I fail to see how helping a mother who has continued to make many mistakes and still does not use the resources at her disposal in any way shape or form improves my life."

And that's why you and I disagree.

^I'm sure they're not outraged of that, more jealous. That issue doesn't make them feel like they're better than everybody else so they don't really focus on it.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2007 4:02:12 PM

Quote :

"The same conservatives that argue against social welfare programs are the same ones that take in hundreds of billions of dollars a year in government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, subsidies and grossly overpriced & no-bid contracts."

No bid contracts, I'm with you. Tax breaks? In my opinion, that money is their's to begin with, not the fucking governments. Tax breaks don't phase me one bit. Subsidies, I'm with you again. Allow the market to operate.

\/ ANd he's right.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 4:04:32 PM

^^^ if this thread was about corporate welfare, then I'd join in the bitching about that.

but apparently this thread is not about corporate welfare.

3/5/2007 4:04:36 PM

Further, I think that social welfare should be restricted to only where children are involved. Food stamps should be given enough to feed the child.

Fuck you if you can't make it on your crappy minimum wage job and feed yourself.

3/5/2007 4:10:43 PM

I agree with tax breaks to help business EMPLOY PEOPLE. After all, it is thier money. Social welfare creates more mouths to feed. night and day difference, but worthy of a different thread.

3/5/2007 4:17:32 PM

Quote :

"No bid contracts, I'm with you. Tax breaks? In my opinion, that money is their's to begin with, not the fucking governments. Tax breaks don't phase me one bit. Subsidies, I'm with you again. Allow the market to operate."

Well, the state of NC just gave $300 million in incentives in the form of tax breaks to Google to relocate to Morganton. The local government needs money to operate. The site needs roads, utility service, police protection, fire protection, emergency services etc and that costs money. The workers who go there have created a need for more capacity for schools, which costs lots of money and will have to be paid for by a lot more citizens than those who work at Google.

So in this way...we the private citizens of NC are paying for a private company's costs with our tax dollars, ie my money. So you see, its private benefit but public cost. As you said, allow the market to operate. But the last thing any business wants is a free market. As long as the costs can be born by the public then they will allow it. Some of the staunchest conservative opponents of government are also some of the world's biggest welfare queens. They love berating the government and telling them that they shouldn't meddle in business affairs, and then they go cash their welfare checks just like the poor.

You say that tax breaks don't effect you one bit, but they do. Its just that you don't see where your money is going after you pay your taxes. I think that statistically you have already given Google almost $45 with no benefit to you. Just think, that is just one business. Lord knows how many thousands more you are/will be paying for over your lifetime.

3/5/2007 4:20:41 PM

Quote :

"Further, I think that social welfare should be restricted to only where children are involved. Food stamps should be given enough to feed the child. Fuck you if you can't make it on your crappy minimum wage job and feed yourself."

Yeah, fuck the disabled.

3/5/2007 4:28:46 PM

Quote :

""Fuck you if you can't make it on your crappy minimum wage job and feed yourself.""

blame the victim, eh?

well let me rephrase that same argument into another situation and see if it holds true

"Screw rape victims. Women shouldn't be out in public anyway. They deserve whatever happens to them."

3/5/2007 4:32:33 PM

well, rape victims typically don't rape themselves.

but MOST people who make low wages are only the victim of their own failure.

3/5/2007 4:37:52 PM

I believe the statistics on economic mobility within the US indicate that if you are born into a poor family then you are heavily likely to stay poor. Its hard to succeed in school if you go to bed hungry, have medical problems you cant treat due to poverty, or live in a violent or crime ridden area. If your family lives paycheck to paycheck, chances are all your efforts are going to just staying alive/subsistence. Education is always going to be a lower priority than survival.

And the rape example was meant to be representative. Rape victims don't rape themselves, but then again poor people don't vote or manipulate the policy process and wages/benefits to make/keep themselves poor either. Both examples include external actors pushing negative externalities onto an unwilling party.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 4:45:59 PM

I don't believe that example is the norm. If it is, explain how the majority of obese americans are poor, if they are going to bed hungry.

3/5/2007 4:50:12 PM

Quote :

"explain how the majority of obese poor americans are poor obese"

fixed

3/5/2007 4:51:48 PM

oops, thanks. that is what i meant.

3/5/2007 4:54:06 PM

^funny, but sadly true.

3/5/2007 4:54:45 PM

Didn't this discussion start by saying its pointless and dumb to feel sorry and help out the poor and then as soon as Bridget brought up childcare people told her that the imaginary mom should find a church or relative to help her out with the children?

Doesn't that come from people empathizing for and helping out the poor?

Now if people siding with rally are just against the particular way that the poor are being helped and that it can be exploited that is one thing. But rally starting off the thread with something completely off the wall like he did just ruins any useful conversation that could go on in here.

3/5/2007 4:56:08 PM

I don't know.

But let me throw out some anecdotal info.

My cleaning lady and her family moved here several years ago from Haiti. Then her husband left her and her two kids. While she's a legal resident, she has no degree and no job skills, and the ex-husband isn't paying child support because he went back to haiti.

So she cleans houses during the day while we "rich people" are at work. I don't know how many she does a day, but given that it takes her about 3 hours to clean my house, and I pay her $100 for each cleaning (every other week), if she keeps a relatively full schedule, that's not bad money at all. She was working full time at Ross just for the health insurance, but after getting more clients, she can pay for that out of pocket now, and is taking night classes at wake-tech.

So here's a single mother with 2 kids who's grabbed the bull by the horns.

Sure, it's anecdotal, but there's nothing that she's doing that any able bodied person could not do. But cleaning houses is pretty damn hard work. So i guess that's why so many people don't mind working for a lot less with the addition of that nice little welfare check.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : asdg]

3/5/2007 5:09:43 PM

You might say that social welfare is a safety net to redistribute funds to those who would not otherwise survive because of a failure in the market to pay living wages.

3/5/2007 5:17:55 PM

safety net or hammock? Pay living wages, some choose not to work and receive more than those who do work. That is not fair.

3/5/2007 5:22:23 PM

Quote :

"BobbyDigital: If it is, explain how the majority of obese americans are poor, if they are going to bed hungry."

Cause they eat toal garbage because it's cheaper. End of the month, they may run out of garbage and be hungry for a few days.

On a side note, I think crappy food contributes to physical depression too.

Quote :

"BobbyDigital: but MOST people who make low wages are only the victim of their own failure."

You're right. Society plays no role at all.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2007 5:22:34 PM

it's not cheaper at all.

that's stupid.

3/5/2007 5:24:27 PM

Quote :

"as soon as Bridget brought up childcare people told her that the imaginary mom should find a church or relative to help her out with the children? Doesn't that come from people empathizing for and helping out the poor?"

I believe the people could be empathizing with the poor or empathizing with the children depending on their personal reasons for doing it.

While I don't take as harsh of a stance as some people in this thread I agree that poor adults are there largely as a result of their own decisions.

My own parents both grew up in poverty. My dad's situation would have been extreme by today's standards (sharecropping, single room houses with dirt floors, etc.) They are moderately wealthy today. There was no "luck" involved. My parent's worked their asses off. My mom went to nursing school. My dad paid his way through college and didn't graduate until he was around 30 years old. He started his CPA firm when he was in his mid-30's and had two young children at home. I remember him working 80 hour weeks. I remember my mom going back to work when I was 3 or 4 years old. These were all sacrifices, but my brother and I have all the opportunity in the world as a result of it. Life is what you make of it. You have to play the hand you're dealt.

3/5/2007 5:24:33 PM