I just dropped some logic on you, TreeTwista10. I'll be clear about it now:

Providing for poor children now ultimately saves us money.

The document I found speaks to the idea that I'm wrong about providing free daycare and pre-school to everybody since the private daycare industry is crucial to our economy in a number of ways.

But it does support my idea that providing free daycare/pre-school for poor children now saves us money in the end. OMG LOGIC!

Quote :

"Long-term studies show that quality programs, particularly for low-income children, decrease the likelihood of special education enrollment, juvenile delinquency, adult incarceration, and welfare participation, which increase overall quality of life and reduce government spending."

Page four of...

http://www.smartstart-nc.org/econimpact/NCEIRExecSumWeb.pdf

But you'd rather pay more for prison later than give kids a real chance now, huh?

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ?]

3/8/2007 12:02:04 PM

this is the dumbest shit I have ever read

burn in hell

3/8/2007 12:02:37 PM

Children deserved to be punished for their parents' poor choices, Snewf.

Maybe you just don't get it.

3/8/2007 12:20:30 PM

^no, the govt should make sure everyone grows up like paris hilton did. I mean seriously, where does it end? Brid, I dont think you are stupid by any means, just naive about what is really going on. When you start working, esp if your work envolves dealing with these govt programs and the people on it.. the light will come on.

Perfect example. I used to pay extra on my utility bill to go towards people who couldnt afford thier heating bills. Neighbors helping neighbors program. After a year of doing that, I ran into a patient who was talking about her arthur ritis, and how she has her heat set to 85. I asked how she could afford that when mine was set on 68, and she said she didnt have to pay for it, the electric company has a FREE program for her.. never paid an extra dollar since. Hell she probably just opened the door when it got too hot. why not?

3/8/2007 12:29:05 PM

arthur ritis

3/8/2007 12:44:20 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: When you start working, esp if your work envolves dealing with these govt programs and the people on it.. the light will come on."

I teach at a high school where over 65% of the kids receive free or reduced lunch (meaning they're at or below the poverty level).

The light bulb certainly did come on for me, but not in the way you're thinking.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 12:51:18 PM

[quote]Long-term studies show that quality programs, particularly for low-income children, decrease the likelihood of special education enrollment, juvenile delinquency, adult incarceration, and welfare participation, which increase overall quality of life and reduce government spending.[quote]

Elimination of government spending on people who don't need or deserve help also reduces government spending.

3/8/2007 12:59:43 PM

I believe that every kid should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Of course rich kids are going to have some advantages, but removing the disadvantages from poor kids is a noble cause. If that means medicare, increased spending on schools in poverty-ridden areas, vouchers, outreach programs for at-risk teens, etc, so be it.

But this thread isn't about kids. It's about adults who "choose" to be poor through wasteful spending habits and unwise decisions. Not every poor person is lazy and stupid, but a lot of them are. There are also a lot of sob stories out there, and I believe that our safety net is adequate for the vast majority of people who fall on hard times.

America is the land of opportunity. Every day, thousands of illegal immigrants risk their lives sneaking into this country for an opportunity at backbreaking labor that typically pays a meager wage. Many of these people work their way up to become homeowners and successful business owners. When I see uneducated mexicans who can barely speak english succeed out here, I wonder why the hell poor folk with many more opportunities cannot do the same.

3/8/2007 1:10:26 PM

spooky, thats what alot of people call arthritis. I also hear alot of cadillacs for cataracts.

3/8/2007 1:12:37 PM

Quote :

"I teach at a high school where over 65% of the kids receive free or reduced lunch "

you mean there are ALREADY programs that help poor kids get food so they dont have to break into your house?

3/8/2007 1:23:22 PM

^I was talking about a world where there was no programs like that. You said it wasn't your job to help the kids. I was letting you know what it would be like if we didn't help the children.

3/8/2007 1:27:53 PM

Quote :

"America is the land of opportunity. Every day, thousands of illegal immigrants risk their lives sneaking into this country for an opportunity at backbreaking labor that typically pays a meager wage. Many of these people work their way up to become homeowners and successful business owners. When I see uneducated mexicans who can barely speak english succeed out here, I wonder why the hell poor folk with many more opportunities cannot do the same."

So which is it, folks?

Are illegal immigrants using up our resources? Or are they making it without help?

The same people who bitch and moan about "illegal immigrants are using all the resources and putting a burden on the system!!!" also talk about "why can't poor people be like the Latinos!!!"

Either way, people who risk everything to be here are some of the most motivated individuals in the world. To expect that kinda motivation, the kinda motivation the encourages people to leave their homes, countries, and families, to expect that here is absurd.

3/8/2007 1:33:45 PM

Quote :

"Are illegal immigrants using up our resources? Or are they making it without help?"

yes both...they are making it without our help by illegally using our resources...we're not voluntarily saying "hey lets give all these benefits reserved for citizens to all of these non citizens"
...but the ones who do make it over here, even illegally, do have the work ethic that the lazy segment of the poor population doesnt seem to have

Quote :

"I was talking about a world where there was no programs like that"

I prefer to talk about the world we live in and not some make believe land

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 1:45:25 PM

Quote :

"The same people who bitch and moan about "illegal immigrants are using all the resources and putting a burden on the system!!!" also talk about "why can't poor people be like the Latinos!!!""

No, actually there are some people who believe that immigrants are a drain on the system, and there are others who welcome immigration and a free flow of labor. I fall in the latter group. It's an issue that divides conservatives.

Quote :

"Either way, people who risk everything to be here are some of the most motivated individuals in the world. To expect that kinda motivation, the kinda motivation the encourages people to leave their homes, countries, and families, to expect that here is absurd."

Supplemental income programs encourage complacency and take away the biggest motivator out there: survival instinct. I don't want poor people to starve, but I don't think they should live too comfortably on the taxpayer's dime, either. If the safety net is too big and too comfortable, a certain portion of the population will always rely on it instead of working hard and providing for themselves.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : 2]

3/8/2007 1:46:12 PM

why don't they get a job, in some capacity, working for the government or the military?

3/8/2007 2:09:41 PM

Quote :

"I prefer to talk about the world we live in and not some make believe land"

The only reason we were in make believe land is because you said it wasn't our job to help these children. I was giving you an idea of what it could be like if we didn't help these children.

3/8/2007 2:15:32 PM

boone after working in your situation, what, in your opinion would help?

3/8/2007 2:17:52 PM

Quote :

"No, actually there are some people who believe that immigrants are a drain on the system, and there are others who welcome immigration and a free flow of labor. I fall in the latter group. It's an issue that divides conservatives"

Free flow of labor is a good thing for this country but it is DEPENDENT on a lack of entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs give incentive to everyone to come to our country. As it stands now, the only non-citizens interested in coming to America are the ones who want to WORK.

That's a good thing.

You start giving every Juan, Pedro, and Marco free healthcare, daycare, high speed internet, etc then you'll start seeing a Latino immigration of non-workers too.

Quote :

"I just can't buy into this notion that people are like, "I'm having another baby to get more money from the government!!" or, "Free daycare? Oooeee! Bring on the gang bang cause I'm gettin pregnant tonight!!!""

I'm sorry that you can't "buy" into this very simple logic. When price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. If we passed a law that said porterhouse steaks were only $1/lb do you not think people would buy more steaks? I mean come on... there's nothing to "buy" into it's just fact.

Quote :

" So your whole argument that the lower/middle class benefit the most from cutting government programs cause they get tax cuts is bullshit. The tax cuts may mean a significant amount of money for the middle earners in theory, but somehow, it never seems to work out that way. And poor people don't pay much in taxes anyway so tax cuts only affect them in that,"

The national savings rate is approximately 0% (hell it's usually negative). That means one thing. When Americans get money, they spend it. If a rich person gets back an extra $10,000 they take vacations, they buy products, they consume services. That creates jobs whether you like it or not. You don't seem to understand the basic priniciple that taxes create inefficiencies and deadweight loss. Products that would be bought otherwise are not bought. Services that would be consumed otherwise are not offered. If I had more take home pay I might get a cleaning lady, a yard mower, buy beers at a bar, or go to the beach. All of the above create JOBS. Not rent-seeking gov't jobs either.

3/8/2007 2:27:07 PM

Quote :

"boone after working in your situation, what, in your opinion would help?"

Poverty's cyclical. Our current system is doing a fine job at helping a small percentage break the cycle while not encouraging anyone to plan on gov't aid all their life.

Consider the following: black females are the most likely group to receive welfare, yet they're doing much much much better than black males, who are very unlikely to receive welfare of any kind (unless you count prison). Clearly our system is not creating a system of dependency.


Things that will help overall?

1. Restore the family. This is not the government's job, though.
2. Legalize drugs. Who needs school when you can hustle and make more money than your teacher?
3. Revamp our schools. Establish separate technical and college-prep tracks.

3/8/2007 3:19:43 PM

here is a good article boone

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html?ex=1300510800&en=57e0d1ceebcbc209&ei=5090

3/8/2007 4:13:50 PM

Quote :

"you said it wasn't our job to help these children"

BridgetSPK I think Boone kind of answered my response to that

Quote :

"1. Restore the family. This is not the government's job, though"

Its not "our" job (the public) to help the children...its the parents' job

3/8/2007 4:24:59 PM

Yeah, it actually is our duty.

It's in our best interests economically and morally.

And it's something the government can do affectively.

3/8/2007 4:36:05 PM

that kinda contradicts what you just said in the quote right there^^

and theres a difference in something being in our best interest and something being our (govt's) duty

Lots of things would be in our best interest but are not a duty of the govt

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:40:02 PM

Quote :

"can do affectively"

is key.

Restoring the family would be a civil liberties nightmare, and the gov't would fail miserably. This isn't the case with welfare.

3/8/2007 5:08:05 PM

well the govt has the size and resources to do a lot of things more effectively than almost any other group of people

but that doesnt mean its their duty

i completely agree that its the family's responsibility to care for the kids...and nobody wants to see kids of all people out on the streets or anything...but short of paying for all of their stuff (out of our tax money) what can you do except try to somehow encourage a stronger family structure?

3/8/2007 5:18:57 PM

Here is another great article, showing the growth of the welfare state.

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/articles/7_welfarestate.htm

Johnson started the current Food Stamp program in 1965 with 424,000 participants, which grew to 2.2 million by the time he left office in 1968. In the first two years of Nixon’s presidency, the number doubled; but between 1970 and 1972 it quintupled. By 1980, the number of people receiving Food Stamps was 21.1 million, fifty times the amount in 1965, ten times what it was at the end of Johnson’s administration. Further, using constant 1980 dollars, welfare spending grew by $30 billion during the five Johnson years, but by $80 billion between 1968 and 1973, an increase 2.7 times larger than under LBJ. The full truth is that, in principle, the United States became a welfare state under FDR in the 1930s, that LBJ increased the programs enormously in the late 1960s, and the massive spending of the past thirty years commenced in the early 1970s.1

3/8/2007 5:22:54 PM

And once again just to be clear.


Let me re-iterate that "food stamps" do NOT pay for food.


If you give people "food stamps" that are worth less than they would pay for food anyway then that is nothing more than wealth re-distribution and you might as well give them cash.


Giving someone $5 in a food lion gift certificate is no different than giving them $5.

And please realize the inefficiency in creating & distributing these "food" stamps.

Cash would be a better alternative if you're hellbent on wealth redistribution.

3/8/2007 5:30:10 PM

Quote :

"rallydurham: The national savings rate is approximately 0% (hell it's usually negative). That means one thing. When Americans get money, they spend it. If a rich person gets back an extra $10,000 they take vacations, they buy products, they consume services. That creates jobs whether you like it or not. You don't seem to understand the basic priniciple that taxes create inefficiencies and deadweight loss. Products that would be bought otherwise are not bought. Services that would be consumed otherwise are not offered. If I had more take home pay I might get a cleaning lady, a yard mower, buy beers at a bar, or go to the beach. All of the above create JOBS. Not rent-seeking gov't jobs either."

Trickle down does not work.

It's supposed to work, but it doesn't. Get over it.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: but short of paying for all of their stuff (out of our tax money) what can you do except try to somehow encourage a stronger family structure?"

I don't think anybody's asking for all their stuff to be paid for. But free pre-school (I'll limit it to just that.) is a good idea.

Quote :

"rallydurham: I'm sorry that you can't "buy" into this very simple logic. When price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. If we passed a law that said porterhouse steaks were only $1/lb do you not think people would buy more steaks? I mean come on... there's nothing to "buy" into it's just fact."

You cannot apply economics to everything.

Quote :

"'There is no evidence that welfare encourages more children,' Daly insists. 'In fact, the states with the highest benefits have the lowest rates of additional births, and the states with the lowest benefits have the highest.' Subsequent children are hardly bonus babies. In the median state, which adds $57 in monthly AFDC benefits for an additional child, each newborn brings a minimum $88.50 a month in new expenses, according to estimates by Catholic Charities USA. Contrary to the myth, AFDC families also are slightly smaller than the U.S. average. The typical AFDC family consists of 2.9 people, according to the Children's Defense Fund, compared to the average 3.16 nationwide. Some 42 percent of AFDC mothers have just one child, and 30 percent have two kids. Just 10 percent of AFDC families include four or more youngsters."

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/welfare/davids.html

Quote :

"Gingrich's proposal assumes that our current welfare system encourages poor, unmarried women to have illegitimate children. Many factors influence unwed motherhood. However, studies indicate that "neither the receipt nor the level of AFDC is related to the birth rate of unmarried adolescents." In 1993, the Census indicated that some states with the highest benefit rates (e.g., California) had the lowest birth rates for unwed teens, while other state that offer minimal benefits (e.g., Georgia) have some of the highest birth rates for unwed teens. Although many people assume that illegitimacy has increased only with the poor, between 1979 and 1992, the rates have doubled for both the poor and the non-poor."

http://members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/OrphanageMother.html

Quote :

"Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997)."

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 5:53 PM. Reason : sss]

3/8/2007 5:30:14 PM

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM. Reason : sss]

3/8/2007 5:48:42 PM

kill the poor

3/8/2007 6:01:17 PM

Dammit, I knew I shouldn't have posted before I left town...but I couldn't help myself.

Anyway, my failure to respond heretofore has owed itself to my D.C. trip and subsequent separation from the lifeblood that is the internet.


David0603

Quote :

"As much money as she'd be getting extra each month I feel sure she can find a little spare time to take care of this. It is a very reasonable expectation. "

Government organizations -- police branches -- cannot find some of these people. I know. They've called me up before, thinking that I was a guy they were looking for, which, given that I've only had sex with the girl I'm currently dating, and hadn't even been sleeping with her for long enough for her to have a kid. If people who are paid to find deadbeat dads as their job can't find them, how in the HELL is it reasonable to expect a person with another job (or jobs) and kids to raise to do it?

Quote :

"Why can't you say it? Back to eyedrb's example. If you had a Ferrari you could not afford you would get rid of it. If you were pregnant with a baby you could not afford...."

I don't think that even the most adamant pro-choice advocate would equate a child to a car. It is far from a given that a fetus or embryo is a meaningless bunch of cells, and it is unreasonable in the extreme to expect people to bend to your way of thinking on this matter of great moral depth out of convenience.

And aside from all of that, you don't have to spend money to sell a ferrari, you make money. Abortions aren't free.

Quote :

"So, it is ok to have two kids you can not afford? What about three, four, five? Where do you draw the line?"

It is neither wrong nor right to have children. It might be wrong to engage in irresponsible behavior, but by the time there is a child coming of it, that point is largely moot.

Quote :

"In that case, why should I help them out? That's god's responsibility."

Did you completely ignore everything else that was said? Because your investment in those poor kids helps at least some of them not turn into criminals, which costs you money, and turns some into actual productive members of society, which may in fact save you money.

What we are trying to tell you is that even if you throw human fucking decency to the wind, helping keep these kids above total abject poverty benefits you.

Quote :

"I don't have any of these as monthly expenses."

Why not? Do you work at home and thus not have to pay for gas/bus fare/etc? Do you not have health insurance? Or is it that you in fact have both of these things, but someone else is paying for it? Hmmmm?

pwrstrkdf250

Quote :

"I don't think anyone "wants" to be poor, however I think that there are plenty of people that are poor and don't want to be poor... but they aren't willing to do what it takes to be successful"

That is almost exactly what I said and even what you quoted .

eyedrb

Quote :

"Birth control is available and for FREE."

It is also supremely fallible, especially when you don't educate people on how to properly use it.

Quote :

"But when you have people burning thier public housing to simply get a new one. Or medicaid paying for hair pills, acne meds, sleeping pill, and fertility pills."

I completely agree that medicaid shouldn't be paying for those things, and that people who destroy public property should be punished, not rewarded. That's why the system needs reform, not abolishment.

rallydurham

Quote :

"This sums up the issue quite nicely. Many poor people are unwilling to work 40 hours a week. The majority of them are unwilling to work 60 hours per week. Even more of them are unwilling to give up cell phone plans, meals at McDonalds, and Nike apparel."

Prove any of this.

Quote :

"I'm even cool with women having some civil liberties. "

Oh thank God, for a minute I thought you were actually being serious about anything you've said.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM. Reason : I will respond to more later you pricks]

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2007 7:47:40 PM

Quote :

"Abortions aren't free."

Let's make them free.

Quote :

"It might be wrong to engage in irresponsible behavior, but by the time there is a child coming of it, that point is largely moot."

I disagree. The person could continue to be irresponsible and have more children. The point is not moot.

Quote :

"What we are trying to tell you is that even if you throw human fucking decency to the wind, helping keep these kids above total abject poverty benefits you."

Unfortunately as good as these programs designed to do this sound in theory, I believe they have negative effects such as those rallydurham and other have mentioned.

Quote :

"Why not? Do you work at home and thus not have to pay for gas/bus fare/etc? Do you not have health insurance? Or is it that you in fact have both of these things, but someone else is paying for it? Hmmmm?"

I was pretty sure gas was mentioned in the budget.
My employer pays for my health insurance. My last one did not so I quit that job and found one that offered benefits such as this one.

3/8/2007 11:17:46 PM

Quote :

"kill the poor"

give everything to the poor for free

3/8/2007 11:39:07 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately as good as these programs designed to do this sound in theory, I believe they have negative effects such as those rallydurham and other have mentioned. "

rallydurham's assertions are based on statements like:

Quote :

"Poor people don't go hungry. They choose to give up food to spend more on drugs/alcohol, cell phones, etc. A simple look at food stamp statistics proves this. "

Which have no proof, and aren't realistic.

3/8/2007 11:45:26 PM

3/9/2007 3:09:06 AM

Quote :

"Let's make them free."

Make them free tomorrow. You might see their use go up some, but not a hell of a lot. And the idea of forcing someone to have an abortion is reprehensible by almost all standards.

Quote :

"The person could continue to be irresponsible and have more children."

Discouraging irresponsible behavior can be accomplished by a range of methods that don't leave existing children in even more abject poverty (and thus, conditions prone to crime and unproductivity) than they already are.

Quote :

"Unfortunately as good as these programs designed to do this sound in theory, I believe they have negative effects such as those rallydurham and other have mentioned."

You mean those effects that are still almost completely unsubstantiated in this thread? Those effects that, while examples of them certainly exist, just as certainly have not been demonstrated to outweigh the positives? Those effects?

Quote :

"I was pretty sure gas was mentioned in the budget."

Regardless, gas is a transportation cost, which you claimed you don't have to pay for. Every single person in this country has some transportation cost, it's just an issue of who's actually paying it.

Quote :

"My employer pays for my health insurance. My last one did not so I quit that job and found one that offered benefits such as this one."

There are more people in the workforce than there are jobs with health plans. You might still try saying, "It's not my responsibility to pay for other people's healthcare," but don't try this whole "Well why don't they just get a better job that pays for it" line of bull on us.

3/9/2007 10:47:59 PM

Quote :

"Make them free tomorrow. You might see their use go up some, but not a hell of a lot."

Some is better than nothing.

Quote :

"Discouraging irresponsible behavior can be accomplished by a range of methods that don't leave existing children in even more abject poverty (and thus, conditions prone to crime and unproductivity) than they already are."

I'd love to hear some suggestions.

Quote :

"You mean those effects that are still almost completely unsubstantiated in this thread? Those effects that, while examples of them certainly exist, just as certainly have not been demonstrated to outweigh the positives? Those effects?"

I thought someone posted an article about the effects doing this had in France. Furthermore, I said "I believe" since like you said, the effects are unsubstantiated for the most part in this thread.

Quote :

"Regardless, gas is a transportation cost, which you claimed you don't have to pay for. Every single person in this country has some transportation cost, it's just an issue of who's actually paying it."

I was referring to monthly car payments as a the main transportation cost. I did not address gas because it had been included in the budget above my post.

Quote :

"There are more people in the workforce than there are jobs with health plans. You might still try saying, "It's not my responsibility to pay for other people's healthcare," but don't try this whole "Well why don't they just get a better job that pays for it" line of bull on us."

A. It's not my responsibility to pay for other people's healthcare
B. If you can not afford healthcare and can not obtain a job with a health plan then find a job that pays more, move to an area where things cost less, etc. etc. etc.

3/10/2007 12:18:47 AM

I still haven't seen someone suggest a reasonable solution to this woman's problem. Should we reduce the taxes she pays, give her free healthcare, free daycare, free transportation, free food, free shelter, free internet, free computers, free cell phones? What do we give, how much do we give, where do we draw the line?

3/10/2007 12:22:57 AM

fucking just grind them all up into tasty biscuits.

3/10/2007 12:26:45 AM

what is the womans problem again? It sounds like she has two kids and is working. I see no problem.

3/10/2007 9:49:50 AM

Quote :

"Discouraging irresponsible behavior can be accomplished by a range of methods that don't leave existing children in even more abject poverty (and thus, conditions prone to crime and unproductivity) than they already are."

Out of curiosity, any ideas on that? We can't force people to have an abortion, you could in theory take the child away but that's a legal battle and still leaves us with the problem of the child in the first place, you can't castrate people, is there a method out there that would effectively reduce or eliminate irresponsible behavior, without harming the existing children and without violating human rights? I'm not so sure.

3/10/2007 11:43:17 AM

Quote :

"I'd love to hear some suggestions."

Quote :

"is there a method out there that would effectively reduce or eliminate irresponsible behavior, without harming the existing children and without violating human rights?"

1) There's the obvious -- actually educating people about birth control in school, and earlier than we currently do. As it stands, abstinence-only programs, incompetent teachers, and a late start time on sex ed are all contributing factors to the problem that could be solved more cheaply and with fewer tangles.

2) Increase the avialability of birth control besides condoms, which even under ideal conditions are frighteningly ineffective and, for the large part, the only things you can easily get for free.

Those are the no-brainer ones, anyway.

Quote :

"I thought someone posted an article about the effects doing this had in France."

Probably, but France is a clusterfuck for all kinds of reasons. Yeah, its social programs are largely fubar, but in that respect it is largely an exception to the rule. Much of Europe has encountered greater success along similar lines. Hell, it's even improved the fuck out of Cuba.

Quote :

"I was referring to monthly car payments as a the main transportation cost."

As may be, you can't deny that this is a substantial part of the budget for many, many people that have a car -- and, for those that don't own a car, it's replaced by other costs (bus fares, etc.) The simple fact is that for most people, transportation costs are a reality that cannot possibly be avoided.

Quote :

"A. It's not my responsibility to pay for other people's healthcare"

We could go on about this ad nauseum, but I'll reiterate that whether or not it's your responsibility, it is in your best interest.

Quote :

"B. If you can not afford healthcare and can not obtain a job with a health plan then find a job that pays more, move to an area where things cost less, etc. etc. etc."

Ludicrous. For one, as has been explained many times over in this thread, picking up and moving is not always a viable option. Moreover, no regional cost-of-living disparity is going to compensate for health care costs, which are depressingly high everywhere in this country.

Also, if everyone moves to the place where the costs are lower, they won't stay lower very fucking long, now will they?

3/10/2007 3:21:57 PM

Quote :

"1) There's the obvious -- actually educating people about birth control in school, and earlier than we currently do. As it stands, abstinence-only programs, incompetent teachers, and a late start time on sex ed are all contributing factors to the problem that could be solved more cheaply and with fewer tangles. 2) Increase the avialability of birth control besides condoms, which even under ideal conditions are frighteningly ineffective and, for the large part, the only things you can easily get for free. "

Which still does nothing to decrease the irresposible behavior. The single mother of two, who can't even afford to care for them should not be having sex PERIOD. No birth control system is 100% failsafe and while many are 99%, they fall apart at the same level: human error. And somehow, I'm not trusting these folks to do everything right. Which isn't to say I don't agree with expanding in this area, but there's more to this problem than just sex ed.

3/10/2007 5:05:29 PM

Quote :

"no regional cost-of-living disparity is going to compensate for health care costs, which are depressingly high everywhere in this country."

I disagree. Someone living in LA, NY, etc. could easily move here, take a pay cut, and still have a much higher standard of living.

Health care costs are not depressingly high everywhere. I used to pay a little over $100 a month for mine which I didn't think was too bad. Obviously some fat ass who has heart trouble and doesn't exercise is going to pay much much more. Should I be expected to pick up the tab for his irresponsible behavior as well?

3/10/2007 6:06:46 PM

Quote :

"No birth control system is 100% failsafe and while many are 99%, they fall apart at the same level: human error."

AI birth control FTW?

3/10/2007 6:54:22 PM

Quote :

"The single mother of two, who can't even afford to care for them should not be having sex PERIOD."

An absolutely ludicrous expectation that, once made, will fail you every time. Having sex is a fundamental biological impulse.

Quote :

"Someone living in LA, NY, etc. could easily move here, take a pay cut, and still have a much higher standard of living."

Are you fucking kidding me? A cross-country move isn't something you can just write off, especially when you're going from one low-paying job to an even lower-paying one, as in your example.

Quote :

"I used to pay a little over $100 a month for mine which I didn't think was too bad."

Under what circumstances, and what did it cover?

3/11/2007 4:49:20 PM

^ still arguing with retards on the internets, hmm?

yah.

me too.

3/11/2007 5:24:26 PM

Quote :

"Are you fucking kidding me? A cross-country move isn't something you can just write off"

What does that mean? It doesn't have to be a cross-country move. Just move from the big city to the suburbs if your cost of living is too high.

Quote :

"Under what circumstances, and what did it cover?"

I don't remember the specifics, but it was pretty good coverage through blue cross blue shield. Obviously with two kids, she would be paying more than $100 a month, but still, many families pay for insurance out of pocket.

3/11/2007 7:02:46 PM

youre a dipshit if youre seriously saying that the answer for working poor single parents is to "move"

GTFO

3/11/2007 8:38:37 PM

Not in all cases, but for some, moving could greatly ease their financial burdon.

What's your solution to the problem, dipshit?

3/11/2007 8:40:32 PM