21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??
Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!
21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??
Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!
soo ... if it wasn't for the socialist principle of welfare - that poverty rate would be smaller?
i think the chart said 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty ... second only to Mexico ... hardly the stuff of a Great Country i'd say ...
Brought to you by the great socialism progam - WELFARE.
If you are all so concerned by the ammount of poor children and their lack of opportunities, you would think you would be a little concerned with the nonexistant regulation/consequences of these welfare recipients.
They are the ones to keep this cycle of poverty turning.
You might actually be helping these kids if you teach/educate these parents on responsibilities/consequences for their actions.
But no, Im the bad guy for suggesting that and I am "dehumanizing" them. :roll:
Just keep giving them money and rewarding (with money) for having another child, that seems to be working great!
No need to get in a huff because you learned something today.
By the way, it is once again becoming clearer that you have resentment and hostility toward poor families. You are the first one to bring up welfare here. We were talking about the gap between the rich and poor -- nobody even mentioned welfare until your last post.
You are also aware that there are a lot of very poor people that do not get govt assistance, correct?
And again, I agree that there should be better regulations/consequences of who should recieve welfare (and how they recieve it). But once again, since you say "nonexistant regulations", feel that you are just angry and blowing things way out of proportion.
Your getting confuest. My anger and hostility is towards the actual WELFARE program. Its not doing what its intended to do its supposed to be an Assistance program not an employers. 20% at 5 years is not a program that is helping people.
21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??
Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!
soo ... if it wasn't for the socialist principle of welfare - that poverty rate would be smaller?
ok ... so, you don't know if welfare is causing the high incidence of child poverty - you are just against the program in general and felt like linking the two?
Very true which is why I don't understand how more and more people don't wake up and realize that the way our government has been doing things are wrong and not beneficial to anyone's well being. Why wouldn't more people want to bring a substantial change? Unfortunately our government decides that if anyone else in the world has something they want, they have no problem going in and taking it and trying to instill this bullshit American brand of Democracy
first of all - people have to think there's a problem ... most don't ... as long as they have access to fancy electronics and satellite tv ... all is good ... massive debt; damage to the environment; poverty are not things that consume the general populace ...
[b]and i just want to add that it is the same here in Canada ... not to the extent of the US ... but to a certain degree ...[/b]
Yes, I see the same happening here, in Canada. We have to demand that government represent the people again (or for the first time ever). They are supposed to act on our behalf, not mainly for the rich and powerful. We need to take the control back, vote, protest, and if we have to, run for office ourselves. It's like they are using Ponzi schemes masquerading as democratic governments, hiding the most cunning heist ever executed in history. So much so, those dealings crippled the world economy.
I will not be coming back to argue in this thread. If I am wrong, please correct me. I wish to learn more, maybe we can learn a way to change it all, starting at the bottom.
such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.
well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...
Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.
such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.
well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...
Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.
:thumbup: It can't be all or nothing. There has to be a middle ground for any country to thrive. Ok, I am going now. :wave:
such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.
well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...
Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
The best revenge is to live on and prove yourself - EV
21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??
Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!
This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?
=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.
Yes, I see the same happening here, in Canada. We have to demand that government represent the people again (or for the first time ever). They are supposed to act on our behalf, not mainly for the rich and powerful. We need to take the control back, vote, protest, and if we have to, run for office ourselves. It's like they are using Ponzi schemes masquerading as democratic governments, hiding the most cunning heist ever executed in history. So much so, those dealings crippled the world economy.
I will not be coming back to argue in this thread. If I am wrong, please correct me. I wish to learn more, maybe we can learn a way to change it all, starting at the bottom.
BTW, check out the documentary INSIDE JOB. :wtf:
don't let other members of the board scare ya into venturing in here ... yes, it can get heated ... but we're talking about real issues here that has significant consequences ... people care ...
the key is to not take things personally and try and keep an open as mind as possible (easier said than done) ... for the most part - most are very welcoming of differing views ... the more views we get, the better ...
don't let other members of the board scare ya into venturing in here ... yes, it can get heated ... but we're talking about real issues here that has significant consequences ... people care ...
the key is to not take things personally and try and keep an open as mind as possible (easier said than done) ... for the most part - most are very welcoming of differing views ... the more views we get, the better ...
Screw you, polaris_x. You once again have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.
This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?
=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.
Its not a misconception, I just linked in another thread Ohio's welfare breakdown, Not only do they recieve cash (increasing with each child) but they don't have to buy food which is cover by food stamps. Section 8 housing is also paid for by vouchers same as daycare. So their basic needs are covered, to go along with that, schooling and medicaid is also paid for. That pretty much covers everything. Clothes are obtained through programs such as crayons to computers which give out clothes through public schools.
Secondly my story about 11 year old is not made up. While it may not be a majority it is certianly my point on how the cycle of poverty keeps turning.
This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?
=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.
Its not a misconception, I just linked in another thread Ohio's welfare breakdown, Not only do they recieve cash (increasing with each child) but they don't have to buy food which is cover by food stamps. Section 8 housing is also paid for by vouchers same as daycare. So their basic needs are covered, to go along with that, schooling and medicaid is also paid for. That pretty much covers everything. Clothes are obtained through programs such as crayons to computers which give out clothes through public schools.
Secondly my story about 11 year old is not made up. While it may not be a majority it is certianly my point on how the cycle of poverty keeps turning.
Holy fuck!! Who would want to live like that?! Are you on crack?
This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?
=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.
Its not a misconception, I just linked in another thread Ohio's welfare breakdown, Not only do they recieve cash (increasing with each child) but they don't have to buy food which is cover by food stamps. Section 8 housing is also paid for by vouchers same as daycare. So their basic needs are covered, to go along with that, schooling and medicaid is also paid for. That pretty much covers everything. Clothes are obtained through programs such as crayons to computers which give out clothes through public schools.
Secondly my story about 11 year old is not made up. While it may not be a majority it is certianly my point on how the cycle of poverty keeps turning.
as i am not from Ohio, i can't tell you things that are happening there but i just found this article about the about of money that a family of 3 gets from welfare in Ohio.
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
All I see in here is people want to stop people from getting richer... What a stupid way of thinking.
Why don't you focus your efforts on helping the Poor.
I saw one slide that showed the success of college graduates...
WHy not educate the parents of these poor childen on how important H.S. and College graduations are?
Educate them on how sucessful people can become by graduating school instead of droping out.
There are no secretes, people that succeed take mostly the same path that the poor people CHOOSE not to continue.
And talking about socialistic countries, not everthing is "Causation = Correlation" If I said look at Sweden for an example and how sucessful they are, and they are mostly a Socialist country you could also point to their race and how it is 99% caucasian, is that also the "Causation" for their success? I don't think so.
i don't know about anyone else on here, but when i look at the econimic success or failure of a country the first thing that i look at is not race :?
You seem to have a hard time comprehending...
I was giving an example as to why "causation /= correlation" in terms of socialist countries. Great job addressing my other points. :roll:
Here's what YOU seem to have a hard time comprehending:
(1) Our system is set up to create economic disparities. It can't function without them. So the supposed reasons any given individual is on the poor or rich side of the system is completely irrelevant, because there will ALWAYS be a large group of poor people - REGARDLESS of whether or not everyone goes to college. It's the SYSTEM that's the problem. Let's say every single person in this country was a stellar, serious student and got a good college education. Do you think there would cease to be a need for people to flip your burgers or sell you shit at Walmart? Do you think Walmart & McDonald's would suddenly pay every single one of their employees a great salary? Of course not; this system won't allow it.
(2) As a general rule, the very rich get rich off the backs of the poor.
(3) You have this whole causation/correlation thing backwards. Yes, causation does - ALWAYS & necessarily - imply correlation. It's correlation that doesn't imply causation.
(4) Are you actually saying that economic systems have absolutely no influence over economies?? :?
Thats the point. A lot of the time, we dont choose, but it chooses you.
Poor people typically dont have access to the necessities of daily living such as food, clothing, shelter, or safe drinking water. Often they have a lack of access to information, education, health care. Yes, education -- like you said yourself, teachres dont want to stick around in your wifes school. The level of education there is differrnt from the "A" school down the street in a nice neighborhood.
you should also google: "cycle of poverty" "Children are most at the mercy of the cycle of poverty. Because a child is dependent on his or her guardian."
Teachers don't want to stick around (not becase their poor) because the kids ASSULT teachers .
I'm pretty sure the REASON good teachers don't stick around to teach in poor schools wasn't the point. The point was that they don't, and therefore poor kids don't have the same opportunity to get a good education.
I know you want to think that every single poor child assaults teachers, doesn't care about school, and has shitty, irresponsible parents. But let's just pretend for a second that there is even ONE "good" poor kid, who stays out of trouble and works hard in school and has the support of his/her parents. THAT kid - and every kid like him/her - has LESS of an opportunity to get a good education than kids in wealthier schools with better teachers. Can't you just admit that?
Yes, I see the same happening here, in Canada. We have to demand that government represent the people again (or for the first time ever). They are supposed to act on our behalf, not mainly for the rich and powerful. We need to take the control back, vote, protest, and if we have to, run for office ourselves. It's like they are using Ponzi schemes masquerading as democratic governments, hiding the most cunning heist ever executed in history. So much so, those dealings crippled the world economy.
I will not be coming back to argue in this thread. If I am wrong, please correct me. I wish to learn more, maybe we can learn a way to change it all, starting at the bottom.
BTW, check out the documentary INSIDE JOB. :wtf:
don't let other members of the board scare ya into venturing in here ... yes, it can get heated ... but we're talking about real issues here that has significant consequences ... people care ...
the key is to not take things personally and try and keep an open as mind as possible (easier said than done) ... for the most part - most are very welcoming of differing views ... the more views we get, the better ...
as for your post ... definitely agree ...
Thank you for the advice.
I want to add...
We can go on and argue about how people act who are on welfare. We can argue about how socialism seems similar to communism. What we need to do is address how our governments are harming citizens with their moral bankruptcy. Government officials are fully engrossed in their personal power and greed to even remember what we appointed them to do. They use religion, environment and war to distract us from their behaviour. They don't even realize that they are "cutting their nose off to spite their face". They aren't even thinking what will happen if they completely cripple the lower-to-middle classes. North America is turning into Trickle-Down society. Lots of money at the top, barely any getting to the bottom. That is considered a third-world democracy. We are too busy raging against it in other countries to see that it is happening right now in our own. USA and Canada, in particular, used to be the role models for the world. I don't understand how our societies have become so complacent. Why are we allowing ourselves to be shoved aside and not counted by our own governments?
perhaps I need to be directed to a different thread... :?
I don't want to argue with anyone, I didn't intend for that to happen when I posted this link, I want to thank you all for the replies and the discussion, I enjoyed reading them and respect your views and your opinions. It's cool to be able to get input on things like this from different parts of the country and world.
The best revenge is to live on and prove yourself - EV
I just want to add that while a lot of this discussion has been around people on welfare, we must also understand that not everyone who is poor is on welfare. some are working jobs that pay very little also. I am reminded of this every time i go to a Wal Mart and see seniors working as greeters.
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?
thats true, what people also have to realized is that there is a direct correlation between income and health. studies have shown that low income people have worse health and also access emergency rooms more. so the money spent on welfare may actually save the government money in other ways.
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?
I think that's a really good point, and I bet we could learn a lot by looking at crime rates in more equitable countries versus crime rates in countries with even worse economic disparity. I always remember reading an interview with a very young narco hit man in Colombia. Asked why he did it, he said he wasn't a violent person by nature, but his mother needed a new refrigerator. Sure, you can get a job at McDonald's in the U.S. But if it doesn't pay enough to save up for a new refrigerator & there's no government assistance to help... even "good" people will resort to whatever they feel they have to do to care for their loved ones.
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?
thats true, what people also have to realized is that there is a direct correlation between income and health. studies have shown that low income people have worse health and also access emergency rooms more. so the money spent on welfare may actually save the government money in other ways.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?[/quote]
thats true, what people also have to realized is that there is a direct correlation between income and health. studies have shown that low income people have worse health and also access emergency rooms more. so the money spent on welfare may actually save the government money in other ways.
Yes, that's a HUGE issue that I wish people would address. More info can be found at this website too: http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/[/quote]
that's another great website. I personally believe every government should look at the determinants of health as a policy to live by. the world is not as disconnected as some people like to assume it is.
that's another great website. I personally believe every government should look at the determinants of health as a policy to live by. the world is not as disconnected as some people like to assume it is.
I couldn't agree more. I think it should be built in to health policy. And those who don't care about health should at least care about social determinants of health for the sake of economic policy. It just makes sense. (Which is why it will probably never happen in this country.)
It just makes sense. (Which is why it will probably never happen in this country.)
I cannot tell you how many times I think this in a day
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!
soo ... if it wasn't for the socialist principle of welfare - that poverty rate would be smaller?
ok ... so, you don't know if welfare is causing the high incidence of child poverty - you are just against the program in general and felt like linking the two?
Yes, I see the same happening here, in Canada. We have to demand that government represent the people again (or for the first time ever). They are supposed to act on our behalf, not mainly for the rich and powerful. We need to take the control back, vote, protest, and if we have to, run for office ourselves. It's like they are using Ponzi schemes masquerading as democratic governments, hiding the most cunning heist ever executed in history. So much so, those dealings crippled the world economy.
I will not be coming back to argue in this thread. If I am wrong, please correct me. I wish to learn more, maybe we can learn a way to change it all, starting at the bottom.
BTW, check out the documentary INSIDE JOB. :wtf:
Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.
:thumbup: It can't be all or nothing. There has to be a middle ground for any country to thrive. Ok, I am going now. :wave:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?
secondly, your little story about 11 year old getting pregnant does not represent the trend as a new report that just came out shows i.e. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/h ... 815315.htm.
=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.
don't let other members of the board scare ya into venturing in here ... yes, it can get heated ... but we're talking about real issues here that has significant consequences ... people care ...
the key is to not take things personally and try and keep an open as mind as possible (easier said than done) ... for the most part - most are very welcoming of differing views ... the more views we get, the better ...
as for your post ... definitely agree ...
Secondly my story about 11 year old is not made up. While it may not be a majority it is certianly my point on how the cycle of poverty keeps turning.
:shh: once you get them in ... they can never leave!
Holy fuck!! Who would want to live like that?! Are you on crack?
as i am not from Ohio, i can't tell you things that are happening there but i just found this article about the about of money that a family of 3 gets from welfare in Ohio.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6331872_ohio-w ... efits.html
now i might be wrong but from what i just read a family of 3 gets $434 a month. does that seem like a lot of money. also, you make it seem like these parents of these children are just happy to take used clothing from public schools which i can tell you from personally experience is not the case. I have never met a person on welfare who didn't want to find a job. and i am a social worker and all my clients are on some social assistance.
Here's what YOU seem to have a hard time comprehending:
(1) Our system is set up to create economic disparities. It can't function without them. So the supposed reasons any given individual is on the poor or rich side of the system is completely irrelevant, because there will ALWAYS be a large group of poor people - REGARDLESS of whether or not everyone goes to college. It's the SYSTEM that's the problem. Let's say every single person in this country was a stellar, serious student and got a good college education. Do you think there would cease to be a need for people to flip your burgers or sell you shit at Walmart? Do you think Walmart & McDonald's would suddenly pay every single one of their employees a great salary? Of course not; this system won't allow it.
(2) As a general rule, the very rich get rich off the backs of the poor.
(3) You have this whole causation/correlation thing backwards. Yes, causation does - ALWAYS & necessarily - imply correlation. It's correlation that doesn't imply causation.
(4) Are you actually saying that economic systems have absolutely no influence over economies?? :?
Oh! I'm touched! You DO pay attention to what I say. :P
I'm pretty sure the REASON good teachers don't stick around to teach in poor schools wasn't the point. The point was that they don't, and therefore poor kids don't have the same opportunity to get a good education.
I know you want to think that every single poor child assaults teachers, doesn't care about school, and has shitty, irresponsible parents. But let's just pretend for a second that there is even ONE "good" poor kid, who stays out of trouble and works hard in school and has the support of his/her parents. THAT kid - and every kid like him/her - has LESS of an opportunity to get a good education than kids in wealthier schools with better teachers. Can't you just admit that?
I want to add...
We can go on and argue about how people act who are on welfare. We can argue about how socialism seems similar to communism. What we need to do is address how our governments are harming citizens with their moral bankruptcy. Government officials are fully engrossed in their personal power and greed to even remember what we appointed them to do. They use religion, environment and war to distract us from their behaviour. They don't even realize that they are "cutting their nose off to spite their face". They aren't even thinking what will happen if they completely cripple the lower-to-middle classes. North America is turning into Trickle-Down society. Lots of money at the top, barely any getting to the bottom. That is considered a third-world democracy. We are too busy raging against it in other countries to see that it is happening right now in our own. USA and Canada, in particular, used to be the role models for the world. I don't understand how our societies have become so complacent. Why are we allowing ourselves to be shoved aside and not counted by our own governments?
perhaps I need to be directed to a different thread... :?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?
thats true, what people also have to realized is that there is a direct correlation between income and health. studies have shown that low income people have worse health and also access emergency rooms more. so the money spent on welfare may actually save the government money in other ways.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/spring03/health.html
here is just one report
I think that's a really good point, and I bet we could learn a lot by looking at crime rates in more equitable countries versus crime rates in countries with even worse economic disparity. I always remember reading an interview with a very young narco hit man in Colombia. Asked why he did it, he said he wasn't a violent person by nature, but his mother needed a new refrigerator. Sure, you can get a job at McDonald's in the U.S. But if it doesn't pay enough to save up for a new refrigerator & there's no government assistance to help... even "good" people will resort to whatever they feel they have to do to care for their loved ones.
Yes, that's a HUGE issue that I wish people would address. More info can be found at this website too:
http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/
434 sounds cheap to me. In David Simon's book The Corner he basically calls social assistance a monthly bribe. So if $434 is all it takes so that the majority of those families won't have to turn to robbing people to feed their children it seems pretty cheap to me. I mean if you eliminate those payments how much does crime go up? And how much more money has to go to police budgets to keep people safe (probably more than $434 per family)?[/quote]
thats true, what people also have to realized is that there is a direct correlation between income and health. studies have shown that low income people have worse health and also access emergency rooms more. so the money spent on welfare may actually save the government money in other ways.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/spring03/health.html
here is just one report[/quote]
Yes, that's a HUGE issue that I wish people would address. More info can be found at this website too:
http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/[/quote]
that's another great website. I personally believe every government should look at the determinants of health as a policy to live by. the world is not as disconnected as some people like to assume it is.
I couldn't agree more. I think it should be built in to health policy. And those who don't care about health should at least care about social determinants of health for the sake of economic policy. It just makes sense. (Which is why it will probably never happen in this country.)
I cannot tell you how many times I think this in a day
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan