BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 May 07 - 06:19 PM

Bobert, how can you stand it?
Nothings changed since the begining.
Put up the money or suffer the results.

Free education (including, sex ed, drug ed, career counsuling, voc training, etc)
National Free Health Care
Free day care for those that can't afford it.

Just tell 'em to say no, just doesn't cut it.

Bye, bye Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:55 PM

This may be 801.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:49 PM

How come some people can live on 2 or 3 hundred dollars a year, and be quite happy with their lives ?? Why does everyone have to make 20 bucks or more an hour ?? Poor is only relative. And what ever happened to man being resourceful...now everyone wants everything handed to them. I'll say this, nobody should go hungry, but there is no need to resort to crime, or begging, is there ? Society is getting lazy, bottom line.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:03 PM

I think before lumping all people in an area as hopeless entities, there needs to be a person by person, household by household assessment of their skills, health, desire for training and work....if you have a 62 year old and you have a 20 year old, other things being equal, train the 20 year old. At some point too you have to look at the education money in special education and the results it may or may not get with the most mentally handicapped students. I mean way worse than mildly retarded. I do know that some even fairly severely retarded can be productive, but when you look at the resources that are sometimes spent, especially disproportionate in small districts, on very few students, with no realistic hope of anything really...I would say make them comfortable and happy and put the money, the same amount of money into educating dozens if not hundreds of non-handicapped but disadvantaged and uninspired youth. At some point you have to look at return on public investment, and if you can get hundreds of people off public money, and they in turn support the seriously mentally handicapped..isn't everyone better off? I know this will horrify parents of special needs students, but if I had limited funds I would train the mentally non-handicapped first and foremost...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 02:21 PM

I also think that it would be best for most of us to work 6 hours a day..less for parents or at least one parent. So perhaps phase people in with 6 hours a day if they aren't used to working and up it for the young and healthy without dependents to 8. Four hours for those with young children, and 6 when they are in school. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:59 PM

Think Cambodia in 1975. And I am for, like I said, almost every program that anyone can think of, as well as tax reform etc. But simultaneously, and I seem to be a lone light in the darkness here, I want people to behave, voluntarily or not, in ways that do not increase the burden on other people. And I want to extract some public service from everyone who is not otherwise working or taking care of many family members or one requiring a lot of help. That means, every able bodied/minded person who is available will rake leaves, shovel snow, work after being screened in nurseries, schools, parks etc. Up and out of the house by 8 a.m., or work another shift. You have to get people in the mindset of working, in the routine of working, in the expectation of working, and they have to be respected for their work. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:21 PM

I guess then I would have an armed, locked and loaded policemen with me then when I preached to the 14 year olds. A country that lets itself be run by 14 year olds with weapons is already lost. And people who think this is all right are lost. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:22 AM

Case Study 1- Long Beach California: comprising nearly 60,000 students, this was the first large urban school district in the United States to require school uniforms for all students.
Since 1994,
when mandatory uniform policies were adopted in this school district, officials have found that violence and discipline problems dramatically decreased. In the first year following implementation, overall school crime decreased by 36%; sex offenses, by 74%; physical fights between students, by 51%; weapons offenses, by 50%; assault and battery offenses, by 34%; school suspensions, by 32%;
and vandalism, by 18%.11

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/pam230/Paper%20Examples/PAM%20230%20Example%20Paper%201.pdf

Enter the poor man's friend, The ACLU:

In October 1995, working on behalf of low-income families, the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit against the Long Beach Unified School District. The lawsuit claimed that the district fails to help low-income students purchase uniforms and has punished students who do not wear them. It also claimed the district does not adequately inform parents about their rights to request exemption from the program. ACLU attorneys assert that low socioeconomic families are going without food, utilities, and rental payments in order to purchase mandatory school uniforms. In response to these claims, Long Beach Unified School officials state that the district has spent more than $100 thousand in donations from individuals and organizations to purchase uniforms and other supplies for financially burdened students. The officials quickly point out that typically, a set of three school uniforms for the year costs between $ 70 and $ 90, an amount far less than many students spend for one item of designer clothing.

http://www.danenet.org/ncs/forumuniformseval.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:09 AM

SCHOOL DRESS UNIFORMS: A REVIEW

Decreased Absences/Suspensions
In 1998, a study conducted by Brusna compared the effects of uniforms on tenth grade students. The statistical samples were taken from both catholic schools with and without mandatory uniforms and private schools with and without uniforms. Brusna wished to determine "the catholic effect", in addition to the effectiveness of uniforms in general on absenteeism, behavior, drug use and standardized test results. Results showed, not only that uniforms had no significant effect on any of these variables, but that catholic students who wore uniforms were absent more often and scored lower on achievement tests than those catholic students who did not. On a broader level, conclusions show that uniforms are not effective on a high school level (Brusma, 1998)

The Long Beach Unified School District study showed suspensions significantly decreased from the 1993-1994 to the 1994-1995 school year. Middle school suspensions decreased 36% and elementary suspensions were down by 28%. No direct correlation can be found between study results and uniforms (Stanley, 1996). In 1999, five years following the completion of the study, suspensions were down by 90% (Chatterjee, 1999).

Two urban Texas middle schools were used in 1996 to study not only the effect of school uniforms on both behaviors and perceptions, but whether or not uniform type (formal vs. informal) had any impact. Formal uniforms were defined as specific brands and styles dictated by the school. Informal uniforms were loosely defined styles and colors and allowed parents and students to select from a variety of manufacturers. The year following implementation showed an average decrease of 30% in disciplinary referrals. Referrals included three types of infractions: minor, moderate and violent. Dress code violations are included under minor infractions. The formal uniform dress code school decreased less than the informal, at 11% to 45%, however the informal school had considerably more infractions made (Hughes, 1996).

Increased Academic Achievement
In 1995-1996, a study was conducted using two Charleston, South Carolina secondary schools, one with a uniform policy, and one without. Both schools had similar socio-economic status, and contained approximately the same ethnic ratios. The study administered language arts and mathematics tests, as well as a survey and Cooper's self esteem inventory. The school with a uniform policy reported higher attendance, esteem and academic scores (Gregory, 1996).

Decreased Drug Use and Vandalism
Possession of chemical substances decreased significantly, down 69%, one year following the implementation of uniforms in the Long Beach Unified School District (Stanley, 1996). In a follow up study conducted five years following the implementation, vandalism had decreased by 69% (Chatterjee, 1999).

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/msue/programs/cyf/public_html/cindy/Revisedrevoflit.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:16 AM

Whoa!!!

Big agenda you have going there, mg... And some good ideas... Sounds is if yer ready and willing to let "big governemnt" get a whole lot bigger 'cause in order to get all these people involved with our kids it's gonna take a lotta real-world $$$...

So where are you gonna get it???

Plus, I hate to keep going back to this but as resourcefull as you are, keep in mind that you're going to have to deal with a lotta 1`4 year olds who will pulll a gun or knife on you if they so much as sniff that you are preachin' to them... That is reality... And while we might agree that your motives are all well and good, unless you are willing to turn our country into some kinds military state you are going to have to deal with some kids where "they" are and not where "you" are... Back to that ***client centered*** part of the equation...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 04:15 AM

run each and every student through a medical exam every year and include a drug test..all the way through state colleges. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 04:03 AM

There is another problem that has to be addressed -- that of very low-status men...with people not settling down with one mate often..with women tending to mate upward of their social status..that leaves a pool of men who can not attract women in this hyper-sexualized society. Since they can't attract women because they don't have an income, plus they might be unattractive to start with etc...they are of course frustrated, angry..bombarded with stimulation both from media and aforementioned women who in my book are underclothed. And we have to address the fact that some people are just not highly intelligent..there have to be jobs or some sort of something for them...now, one area we are so deficient in is animal husbandry...there should be a whole higher ratio of worker to animal in some situations...

Naturally, everyone should be taught to respect every worker, including those who work at home, who raise their children, who do volunteer work if they can't find other work..who barter and trade and scavange...that might reduce their feelings of inadequacy..it probably won't help them find mates...this whole issue of constantly rotating partners essentially has many many facets...the whole issue of lonely and frustrated and angry men who will take out their frustrations on women and children (and some of the women do push their buttons) is very serious and has to be looked at dispassionately and without favoring the men or the women..just trying to make things better...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 03:41 AM

we need to really get electronics people in..

I just got a AAA phone for $10 a month..I can only call them and call the police...give certain people..women (or men) who have to take the bus late at night...teens who have been bullied...girls who ahve been harassed..they can call the police or a community service office and no one else..you don't want them making their drug deals...oh but they have to call their parents..no...the community service staff can make that call and relay information. Give lots of people portable cameras to record stuff if they can safely. Give people portable alarms. Every dark alley in America, and the world, should have well publicized video monitoring and there should be staff at some central location that could flood any place with light and sound and photograph everything...


An awful lot of criminals are opportunists...not career criminals...if it is easier for them to prey on old ladies they will. If it becomes more and moer difficult they will do it less and less. have like I said spartan housing for them, segrated by their behavior and level of danger and also hygeine...so nobody needs to say..oh but he needed a place to stay. Well, now he has one and get him the hell out of your house if there is any abuse of any sort...oh but I love him. Tough. Oh but he (she) is only like this when he drinks. Send him shipping..

A lot of problems are caused by women, some of whom are not too bright and have men who are also not too bright and that is a whole other story...not getting rid of creepy men in their lives. For one thing, these creepy men get the women pregnant. Here is a place to break the cycle.."Empower" the women to be responsible..many many people want to absolve adult women of any responsibility..they can do nothing wrong..the hell they can't...some for biological reasons can't and they need social workers working with police to help them separate from these men, by which I mean the ones who are violent, drug users, etc. They are the other side of the coin and you have to look at both sides of the coin. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 08 May 07 - 03:14 AM

mg - Occupational therapists and Speech and Language pathologists are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, these specialists are often the first to go when the cuts come.

You are also right about the focus of high schools. The curriculum is geared to those who are preparing for college or university. In other words, they take care of the upper 20% and ignore the vocational needs of others. I also agree that home economics is important but maybe even more important would be courses in parenting.

Most of all we need apprenticeships. Programs that will allow students to take required courses and work part-time as an apprentice in the various trades. Our tradespeople are retiring and we need to pass these skills on to the younger generation. We need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stone masons, etc.

Unfortunately, our schools are lumbering, old institutions that are slow to change because the bureaucrats are more interested in pushing paper and counting beans than listening to teachers who are on the front lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:08 AM

And this is not only for the young teens. Women have to be more modest...I wanted to put that assistant press secretary what's her name in a burkha..she was showing more than I personally wanted to see. Watch what the news anchors (female) some are wearing today...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:39 AM

Absolutely school uniforms, or something similar..beyond a dress code..like you can wear navy blue or beige pants of your choosing, no shorter than Bermuda shorts..a white or pink or light blue shirt, no sayings on any shirts...no sayings on anything...nothing revealing..tell them what they can wear and they will buck the limits but do it anyway.

Part of the problem is ...oh no..I have to finish up so I can get home...is the horrible way girls are allowed to dress in some of these schools. It creates horrible problems for the boys, and the people who have to ride the bus with them, and the male teachers etc. etc. Do Ithink a woman has a right to dress however? No. Do I think she deserves any consequences? No. But don't tempt nature, and don't tempt people who can barely hold it together under the best of circumstances.

OH MY GOODNESS. DID I JUST IMPLY WOMEN HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE ABOUT THIS? Yes. And girls need to have limits. They think of it as fashion and don't realize some of the effects. This gets into my cheerleader rant...why are they flashing themselves in front of the student body like they do? Are their no consequences? Yes...you have these terribly frustrated and lonely young men and there are consequences...This is not good for them....or society. Put some proper clothing on those girls...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:33 AM

You can read Up from Slavery on the internet. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:31 AM

One small step could be school uniforms or rather a specification for clothing. It seems to be legal in any school, public or private.

Longstanding has been the debate over the effectiveness of school uniforms.

Traditionally reserved for private parochial schools, school uniforms have recently been implemented into public high schools throughout the United States. Dress codes banning the wearing of revealing, suggestive, inappropriate, and/or gang insignia clothing have
been replaced by a more strict uniform policy allowing students to choose from an array of solid colored collared shirt, pleated pants, jumpers, sweaters, cardigans, and vests.

While many students oppose this adoption of a school uniform policy, critics argue, citing the longitudinal study completed by the Long Beach California Unified School District, that school uniforms foster a more academically focused learning environment, enhance school safety, heighten school pride, and reduce truancy, absences, and violent acts.

Following in the wake of the horrific school shooting at Columbine High School, the issue of mandating school uniforms in public schools has come to the forefront of educational debates. Since the massacre, schools, both public and private, have increased security and rewritten their dress codes in order to further restrict dress.

Despite these preventative measures and their correlated results, many pose the question if these actions are needed in their local schools. Research conducted by means of qualitative observation, surveys, interviews, and literature reviews examines and analyzes the need
for the implementation of school uniforms at PNHS

http://www.kzoo.edu/educ/sip/2004sips/Weitzel.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:29 AM

run them through vocational interest tests beginning in early high school. When you have poor kids, you have these truly..oh I am on a roll here...not very bright people telling them..oh you don't have to choose anything in high school. They, some of the lucky ones..get to college...oh you don't have to choose a major your first year or two..or even in college...you can choose in graduate school. Now fine, if you want a young man lounging on your sofa at the age of 25 and can afford to support him and perhaps some drug habits..but no. When there are poor students involved, and I of course would say this applies to everyone...tell them..do make a choice. Now. There are only about 6 paths they have to choose from, and they will be reasonably happy in the right one..regardless of how they go..The trick is not how high you go, but getting in the right path. Most people know in high school, with some help, where their interests and strengths lie. If you decide later you made a mistake, there are ways of backtracking etc. There are students who are truly not sure...ever...nature put them there for a reason..to be flexible. Suggest they get the proverbial teacher's degree, or a business degree, or learn a skilled trade. It is better to not allow them to get stuck in this endless..oh I can't choose a major syndrome...the consequences are greater if they are poor..but again it applies to everyone.

And encourage them to go to state schools, unless they are the most brilliant person ever, which most aren't. Good and competent, yes...it causes too many problems for them to be too far from their families and they can't afford to come home for holidays and visits etc.

Well, I have to get back to work now. Thanks for asking for my input.

Don't let me get started on cheerleaders. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:20 AM

Outdoor education specialists. There is now considered to be something called nature deficit syndrome, which even many rural kids, who are essentially containerized most of the day, have. Certainly most inner city kids.

One problem is that educators tend to be drawn from the social career path..and I would presume so do sociologists, but I don't know. Most students however are from the realistic (hands-on, highly rational, technical etc.) group..or at least that is how I remember. Also, if you look at auditory, visual, kinesthetic learners, most teachers are either auditory or visual and most students are kinesthetic..again subject to my fading memory. Anyway, there is a huge disconnect in education, which is hoped to be the great solution..but you have a great and fundamental problem in education with this disparity between learning styles, in fact, basic brain architecture, between students and teachers. Oh, how do we solve this you ask. ALmost any problem you can think of in society can be reduced at least by vocational education (who tend to be drawn from the other groups). And what kind of respect do they get? Go figure. If you want to read something really good, that will tell you step by step how to get out of poverty, read Up from Slavery by Booker T. Washington. Of course I mean it applies to everybody. It is universal..apply to rich and poor...everyone..well, the rich don't have to get out of poverty right at the present time, but the day could come...anyway Booker T. --the one book I will always have in my personal library...hero of vocational educators. I will tell you this..unless we can speak candidly and honestly and bring our best thoughts to this...and spare me the blame the victim crap...I am one of the aforementioned realistic types...I just want to solve problems...we won't make a dent in this and the problem will expand faster than the solutions. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:08 AM

The sociologists are not the only ones who can say how to break the cycle. They have part of the picture. They do not have the whole entire picture. Everyone needs to be heard from -- one group that is extremely important, but probably way underused, is occupational therapists. Get some no-nonsense nurses on board. The kind you don't mess with. Law enforcement. Technology experts that can provide lighting and alarms etc. to make places safer, video monitoring. Nutritionists, if they are totally up to date and knowledgeable, which is a problem but not their fault. Adolescent medicine doctors. Recreation therapists -- teens need to socialize and congregate, but they are like water and they need to be channelled. Driver's ed instructors. Martial arts trainers. Vocational educators. Family planning specialists. Clergy.

People tend to choose careers, and there are about 6 to 8 (or were) major paths or interest groups, because they think in similar ways. A sociologist given the exact same problem is not going to see it, or attempt to solve it like a football coach would..hey put coaches in mylist. She is not (or he) going to approach it like a truck mechanic is. No one has a monopoly, or should, on this very important issue..we must also hear from economists, who can discuss some of this very dispassionately, but brilliantly. We need to look at a whole lot more math in this equation..we can support maybe 10% of the population, but if it keeps expanding so we are supporting 30 and 50 and 70%, with an aging population no less, with international terrorism that requires huge budgets to fight...you have a problem.

Home economicsts....PLEASE BRING THEM BACK. WE NEED THEM DESPARATELY.
Architects, who can think of ways to encourage positive social interactions and inhibit negative ones. Dance teachers who can teach them non-vulgar dances...let them have polka parties...some would like it I guarantee it, if they weren't worried about their cool image.

All hands on board por favor. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:43 PM

Bobert:

I really don't know how to break the cycle. I am not a sociologist. But I do know that just providing support, while it does aleviate the suffering, does not break the cycle.

There are lots of ways to prevent teen pregnancys but the teen must use them. It is like trying to keep them from using drugs or smoking or drinking or stealing.

It seems like a job for parents rather than the government but what do you do with one parent who messed up?

It is not about morals. It is about common sense. Is immediate sexual gratification worth ruining the rest of your life? Is puffing on that cigarette and being cool worth dying 20 years early in pain and suffering?

I don't see religion and morals entering into it. What religion or morals guided prehistoric people to live in families and groups?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:16 PM

Please explain where I am "Blaming poverty on illegitimate children or single parent families"

Poverty is the result of illegitimate children and/or single parent
families.

---

Social scientists have demonstrated conclusively that divorce, illegitimacy, and lack of fathering contribute to poverty, poor achievement in school and throughout life, greater crime, greater drug abuse, lower mortality, poorer health, and a litany of social ills. Truly four out of five children will not grow up with an intact family by the year 2010. The poverty rate for a child in a single-parent home is six times above that of a child in a married, two-parent home. Typically, the household income of a divorced family declines 37 percent.

# Research suggests a connection between positive fathering during childhood and maintaining long-term marriages and close friendships during adulthood. (Franz, McLelland & Weinberger, 1991)
# A white female growing up fatherless is 2½ times more likely to have a child out of wedlock. 40 percent of the fatherless white females do not finish high school.
# 70 percent of the African-American males without fathers do not finish high school.
However, in Chattanooga, 74 percent of those polled agreed that "in most cases, children raised in a home with both natural parents grow up more stable emotionally than do children with one parent." Only 18 percent strongly agreed that "most fathers in Chattanooga are sufficiently involved in raising their children," while 24 percent agree somewhat.

http://www.firstthings.org/inflow/templates/default.aspx?a=121&z=32

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:25 PM

every. Of course. Anything I say ever is for every. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:24 PM

Each and every student past age of 14 meets with vocational counselor, who includes economics of having children too early and sans partner. Not from a religious or moral perspective, just economic, both to them and what they are doing to others in just barely better circumstances. Boss Hog will still be OK but remember the chicken slaughterer who occasionally slices off his or her arm is paying for this so spend their money wisely.

Bottom line: don't do anything that hurts anyone, that reasonably scares anyone, and that costs people money, if you can help it. There will be plenty of people who are disabled, mentally or physically, who must be helped, that we just can not afford to constantly increase the pool of people.

Tell them two things. One, finish high school and take occupational education while there. Two, stay off drugs and alcohol, especially drugs. Three, do not get pregnant and do not get anyone pregnant. Make them watch about three Jerry Springer shows.

Start with the easiest, most fundamental step: telling them not to do it and that it hurts people. Many many will just comply. Trust me. In my experience, which is wide-ranging, this notion that if you tell someone they can't do something they are just going to want to do it,is just not true for the majority of kids.....most are fairly compliant.

Talk with them in groups, in assemblies, and most importantly, one to one. Use vocational counseling as the opportunity...family planning is part of it.

Address these young boys who think it is cool to father a bunch of babies by different girls. If they can not provide child support, and are not working, they should be working in some sort of free capacity cleaning graffiti or picking up trash or something, and I mean a good 40 hours a week. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:19 PM

This for every 14 year old, mg, or just for poor 14 years olds???

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:17 PM

Food stamps somewhat like WIC program, where they have to purchase mostly real food, with perhaps 10% of coupons special for treats, junk foods, etc. Meats, fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, dairy OK. Top ramen, kraft dinner in 10% junk food category. Food stamps good at farmer's markets. If rural, or there is room, community gardens and dairies, perhaps with goats. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:14 PM

Start with chaperoning older children and young teens. No one should be physically able to get pregnant at the age of 14 because they should not have the opportunity. After school programs until mother is home from work or if mothers or fathers are not working they should band together and watch the kids. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:11 PM

"Give a man a fish, you know the rest."

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in the boat and drink beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:09 PM

Bobert, if what you say is true, that is, it is virtually impossible to get poor people to make good decisions, then short of handouts there really is no solution to poverty. The topic makes for interesting and sometimes heated discussion, but at the end of the day we must be realistic and accept the fact that poverty is here to stay. Ive offered some potential solutions, being raising minimum wage, tax breaks for those below the poverty line, government assistance for childcare, starting a business, food stamps, all of which are currently available (correct me if Im wrong, please), or in the works. I mean really, what more can we do ? The answer lies with education, not handouts. Give a man a fish, you know the rest. The whole idea of such a rich country having even one poor person makes me bang my head against the wall !!

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:52 PM

So, I beg the question... Do we ask our legislators to ban divorce???.... Do we legislate that any single parent who recieves any assistence be forced into marriage???... If no suiters are available do we demand that the single parent marry someone who the state appoints???...

Imean, let's get real here for one moment... We aren't going to legislate our country's way out of povertyy thru moralistic codification... That is what the Taliban is all about... So...

... I'd really like for the folks here who have laid blame at the feet of the poor and want to legislate how the poor must accept this "personal responsiblity" for their plight to talk about specific ideas on how to end the cyle of poverty...

I can accept, though disagree with every bone in my body, your position that poor people shold be sterilized, but beyond the Hitler-ish remedies I haven't yet heard one "rightie" say anything about how to get from A to B...

So, Dickey, mg, AWG, et al: How 'bout some ideas... We are beyond the observations, the critiques, the pablum stage of the discussion... I have thrown out my ideas which seem to something that that *** you folks*** (for lack of a better phrase...) don't have much, if any thing, to say much about...

I mean, sure, we'd like poor folks to make better choices but ya' ain't gonna have much more luck with that than passing legislation outlawing cancer???

We're pushing, what, some 8 or 9 hundred posts now, and it's time for the ***blamers*** to get real and step to the plate...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:17 PM

Also, heard of global warming? Remember Katrina? See the pictures of the latest tornados? Who is safer? A child or children with a father, or single mothers and children? We live in dangerous times, with terrorism, natural disasters etc...Most societies are very strict about this and disregard this at their peril. I think some..again, not all...things rarely apply to everyone...children are fundamentally frightened without a father, some with good and immediate reason because they live in dangerous places.

Also, a little point I might raise...there are some very disturbed women out there...and not to say that having a father around would undisturb them, but there is a witness, there is another parent....of course said mother could make things very difficult for the father...

Two things I have read that strike me as very important about the role of the father..besides being a loving parent, a protector and provider of some sort...

1. A man wrote to a Vancouver WA paper and said the function of a father was to protect society from his children.

2. Bob Dylan said the function of a father was to protect them from the mother...

I am not blaming the victim ..except the rich ones who frankly should know better and in my opinion are being just horribly selfish...but there needs to be an understanding of the damage this is doing to everyone, the children first and foremost, the father who might want to be involved but isn't, the mother's parents who often bear a burden they shouldn't have to, the taxpayers often...

Yes..I believe that this has spread, will continue to spread and will seriously affect the economics of the country when some people have to work way too hard and too much to take care of other people's children, which we must do...but there has to be personal accountability and there has to be less, way less, enabling and almost sanctifying this...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 07:44 PM

Here's the deal..the moral society runs two ways...the haves do have an obligation to help the unfortunate, and the have nots have to totally behave themselves so as to cause the least amount of burden to the taxpayers, who themselves are working in coal mines, 7-11s, etc.

I can not say strongly enough how much I hate the idea of a woman deciding that she can just go ahead and have a baby without benefit of marriage. I think it is child abuse in some cases because some children, not all, suffer tremendously from lack of a father. I am not talking poor women, uneducated women, I am talking about Katie Holmes, Movie Star...rich women, powerful women. I think it is just plain an awful thing to do. There is no shortage of children to adopt or take in as foster children (and yes I would have like to do it myself and might be able to when I retire..foster, not adoption). It is unbearably cruel to some, not all children, to deny them a father, and not just a father, but the father's economic support, the father's family...I could go on and on. I am passionate about this. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 07 May 07 - 07:22 PM

Bobert, I've been reading the latest posts and agree with most of what I've read. I think my views on poverty, though seen by some as harsh, are at least put clearly forward. I strongly feel that society must start to accept some personal responsibility for their situation, and stop looking for a free lunch courtesy of the US taxpayer. Bear in mind, this would only apply to those physically and mentally able to work. There will always be those who need the assistance. As far as single parent families go, why does everyone seem to feel the need to have children when they know damn well they are unable to properly support them ?   It is a different situation when a couple splits up and a single parent family results, but then isn't it the father's responsibility to support these children ? Why doesn't the government get tougher with deadbeat dads ? Why further burden the taxpayer ? For those single parents who really need the help, I agree with your ideas, Bobert, however since relying on the government to bail people out when they get in trouble is wishful thinking at best, (in most cases), society will continue to rely on philanthropy. Let's hope it continues to increase in the future. ..... and I can't emphasise enough the importance of the role of the school system. Poverty is a vicious circle and one sure way to reduce it would be to start with the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:42 PM

But for the purpose of discussion, Dickey, let's for a moment assume that the "sociological research" is true, how do we change the cycle???

Yeah, can we get betond the blame game and look at some things that we, as a moral society, can do to change things 'cause waht we are doin', in the words of Doctor Phil, "Ain't workin' fir us..."...

I mean, passing deiculous laws that pretain to some folks and not others ain't the answer... You know, like requireing all poor people to marry ot have their tubes tied or whatever crap the right wing can come up to further disenfranchise and seperate the poor...

I have laid out the basic premises of what I think can work of a guarenteed national income thru low income tax credits, coupled with greater subsidies for child care for anyone willing to work...

I have proposed paying for it by:

1. Creating a "value added tax" on all goods produced by US corporation regardless of who produces them...

and...2. Rolling back the tas breaks to the upper 1%...

I haven't heard any of Dickey's or AWG's ideas but would love tyo hear them....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 07 - 03:38 PM

Whenever you see terms like, "Sociological research shows...", you can almost guarantee that no such research exists. If it did, the source would be given. Add to that the fact that the article was written by Dave Kopel, and you know for certain that there is absolutely no truth to his point of view.

Blaming poverty on illegitimate children or single parent families is stereotyping at its worst. Like bobert said, its a red herring.

You're just trying to justify your own reason for existence. What if children didn't need two parents? Where would that leave you? What if your wife decided that she didn't really need an ignorant, gun-toting, red-neck to pass his beliefs on to their children? Would the children be better off without you? I think they might.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 01:12 PM

Sociological research shows that illegitimate children are seventy percent more likely to be expelled from school; half as likely to do well in school; over twice as likely to have illegitimate children themselves; almost twice as likely to get divorced if they ever do marry; less likely to use contraceptives as teenagers; 25 to 50 percent more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, or excessive dependence; twice as likely to engage in antisocial behavior; and two to three times more likely to need psychiatric care. All these results are based on studies that held other variables (such as race, parental income, or parental education) constant.

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=479

This does not say that support for single parent families causes the children to have illegetimate childern,although it could be a factor.

I think the empahsis should be placed on preventing single parent families. Otherwise the number of single parent familes will keep growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 07 - 07:23 AM

Single or two parent families may be morwe of a red herring issue... What we were talking about the lack of resources... Okay, a stay at home mom 'r dad **might** be a resource but this isn't a given...

I do agree with Dani that we need to put more money into ***subsidized child care***...

BTW, as I ready myself to go to work this mornin' I kinda wonder what I would be doing now if my son were 8 years old and still living with me and I didn't have the P-Vine to help out... I certainly wouldn't have the time to sit here at a computer participating in this discussion... Now take my situation and throw poverty into the equation and the word "nightmare" comes into play...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 07 - 03:21 AM

I don't think there are any figures to show that single parent families create more single parent families or vice versa.

I think pointing the finger at single parent families as a cause for anything is misleading and prejudicial.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:32 AM

If I am completely wrong then support of single parent families reduces the number of single parent families or at least keeps the number from increasing. Correct or am I wrong again?

Single aprent families do not automatically mean failure and nuclear families do not necessarilay mean sucess but the sucess rate is lower among single parent families.

I just heard today about a couple who kept their 5 and 10 year old sons in dog cages.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/NEWS03/705030400/-1/NEWS

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 11:18 PM

But Dani - Being in a nuclear family does not protect you from any of the set-backs or pitfalls that you mention. Its not single parenting that creates any of those problems and nuclear families are no guarantee that the parents will be capable of handling those problems, either. I know couples who are so busy making each other miserable that they have little or no time for their children and others who think if they give their kids everything (except discipline) they will be loved.

All parents are overwhelmed at times. Most parents can cope with pressure and stress and still have time to devote to their children - being single or married doesn't make the difference. A double income might. It certainly helps if healthcare is paid, you have housing and some sort of assistance to see you through the tough times. As a single mom I had to deal with injury, serious illness and academic challenges but with part-time work and student loans, we made it.

As I said before, single parenting is not the cause of poverty and does not lead to more poverty if there is social assistance. I had no spousal support or immediate family to help me. The only thing that helped me overcome was universal healthcare, an educational loan and govt. assistance (School clothes and supplies for the kids, Christmas and summer holidays) when we needed it.

Just because my children have been raised by a single mom does not mean they do not want life-partners. My son has found his life mate and they are very happy. My daughter is still looking but in the meantime, she has been going to university and looking after herself.

Those of you who are hanging on to the notion that single parents are a blight on the landscape, are doing the children of those families a great diservice. Both of my children had to overcome that prejudice. It certainly doesn't help when society thinks that you don't have a chance.

I am totally grateful to be living in a country that gave me and my kids opportunities but at the same time, we need to provide more support for those who do not have the skills to overcome the many obstacles that are placed before them.

Neglect and abuse create poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 06 May 07 - 07:55 PM

There are exceptions, and exceptional people, and I'm glad your children are some of them.

But we are talking in this thread about poverty. And when you are struggling every day to figure out how to juggle which bills to pay and which not, how to handle the pressure and stress of day-to-day existence and maintain your personal sanity and health, it makes it extraordinarily difficult to give children and their needs (healthcare, school work, just plain time) the attention and care they require. It just is. And that's normal life. Imagine throwing into that mix any kind of problem (drug use, illness, injury, mental health issues, academic challenges) and it is quickly overwhelming.

And you can forget about people in such situations being involved in public schools (which desperately need parental and community involvement to succeed), and you can forget about their being involved in meaningful ways in community, neighborhood, nation, advocating for themselves and their needs. They're too damned tired, and rightfully so.

This is only one ingredient in the disaster of poverty and hopelessness.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 05:55 PM

"I do what I do because I have to, but strongly believe that two parents focused on a child's raising (preferably married to each other and supporting ONE household, not two) is absolutely key to produceing responsible children." - Dani

That is bullshit. I have two very responsible children (a contractor and an architect) who were raised by a single mother. Furthermore, I know of plenty of children raised in a nuclear family who are in big trouble with stealing, racing, promiscuity, drinking and drugs. Just because you're married doesn't mean you are good parent or insure that your children will become responsible adults.

Take a look at Paris Hilton. Whats her excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 06 May 07 - 05:38 PM

Well, if single parents had the time to pay attention to what was going on in their children's lives and be there to supervise them, it would help a great deal.

I don't believe in punishing single parents, but I do believe we'd all be better off if society (in terms of economics, social programs and "values") was more geared towards supporting couples and extended families to help them raise responsible children. Subsidized child care should be available to help families in crisis. Period.

Also, sometimes when we focus on the childcare issue (who pays so that parents can work outside the home?) we forget that teens who are getting pregnant aren't directly touched by this issue.

I am fortunate to be able to work only one (1) very flexible full-time job while keeping tabs on two teenagers. Many, many parents are not so fortunate. I do what I do because I have to, but strongly believe that two parents focused on a child's raising (preferably married to each other and supporting ONE household, not two) is absolutely key to produceing responsible children. In the absence of that you find a preponderance of IRresponsible children who may not understand the consequences of their actions, and have no good way to learn about relationships and families by example so that they perpetuate untenable situations.

There are way too many ways for them to fall through the cracks.

Dani (who has been lurking, listening, learning)

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:06 PM

"Did the support for single parent families reduce or increase the number of single parent families?" - Dickie

Correlation is not causal.

Perhaps you and AWG should be looking at why the number of single parent families have increased. Its certainly NOT because of the amount of support that has been received. Would you rather these women stay in abusive and/or dyfunctional relationships?

Thats a very old argument and does nothing but blame the poor. Moral judgements only provide a justification for keeping them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:16 PM

Well, AWG, no one has styuck with this discussion this long i the hopes of finding openings to jump down anyone's throat... Actually. by Mudcat standards, this discussion has been one of the most civil for those with this high number of posts...

Three things you hit upon are things that I think most of us can agree on and that is young poor people (generally speaking) need a greater spiritual relationship, achievable goals and education, yes, including sex education...

How do you see this occuring???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 06 May 07 - 11:22 AM

In the past 20 years the number of single parent families might have doubled, but so have the numbers of a lot of other groups, say prison populations. To say that helping single parent families causes an increase in single parent families simply makes me want to bang my head against the wall. The reason for the increase in single parent families is (imo) because all young people want to do is party and have sex, check the stats on teenage pregnancy. If today's youth had any ambition to actually better themselves and had goals in life other than how they will spend Saturday night, and with whom, then maybe things might be different. Todays youth have lost touch with God, and find themselves in a downward spiral, so to speak. I mean, let's be honest, it it wasn't for unprotected sex, how would all these single parent families exist. Young girls must be naive to think a young man would want to stick around to raise a family (assuming the girl even knows who the father is). Okay now, everyone jump down my throat.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 06 May 07 - 11:09 AM

Societal norms gradually changed as the result of so many wives and mother's going to work for pay during WWII. Other changes directly traceable to WWII also occurred. The USA was a sleeping bear pre WWII. The technologies and manufacturing capacities that we developed to supply the troops of the West radically and permanently changed our economic system, led to rise of major corporations as societal influences, began the shift away from agrarian (spell?) norms, resulted in increased mobility, in population shifts, in the loss of community and social supports that were essential to the care and maintenance of the nuclear family, etc., etc. The 'Welfare State' arose in response to these changes. It did not cause these changes.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:55 AM

In 1970, the number of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 was 3.8 million. By 1990, the number had more than doubled to 9.7 million.

In 20 years, while the war on poverty was being waged full force, before the horrible cuts blamed on the current administration, the number of single parent families doubled. Ergo: Did the support for single parent families reduce or increase the number of single parent families?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:41 AM

Well, yeah... Ain't that what a lot of have been sayin'???