Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I go against even some Conservatives on this, and nearly all liberals, but when this country started rewarding the poor who have kids, it started down not just a dangerous path. But an extremely stupid one.
Why in the hell do we look for ways to reward those who knowingly have kids, yet can barely take care of themselves? Most of these situations arent people who accidentally get pregnant. (and let's be honest, you dont ever "accidentally" get pregnant. We all know the possible out come of sex). Giving these people handouts and rewards for having kids is like rewarding your dog for getting himself into trouble or making a mess. Now people not just expect it, but they want more and more. And if you dont want to do more, you hate the poor or hate the children.
Personal responsibility no longer exists. People are afraid to say on national tv that you should not have kids if you can't afford it, and you should no longer be rewarded.
What makes you think only poor people take advantage of pre-K?
Why does the government need to involve itself in pre-K?
When my two daughters were babies, we both worked. My wife was GM of a Southern California department store. I worked in marketing, and traveled a lot. We had to enroll our children in pre-K in order for them to be cared for during the day. Prior to that, we took them over to a woman who cared for infants and toddlers during the day (and yes, she was licensed). It's not uncommon.
50% of all babies born are born under medicaid.
What does that tell you about the future of America ?
Tell the Census Bureau they are twisting statistics.
Exactly. The fact that Medicaid pays for nearly 50% of all births confirms the Census Bureau's fertility statistics. We don't have a 50% poverty rate... yet.
It sucks to have to pay for other peoples' kids because they either cannot or will not take care if their own.
However, what's the alternative? The children didn't ask to be born, especially into such a crappy situation. We cannot punish the children because the parents are irresponsible.
Furthermore, it's bad for society in the long run to just throw up our hands and say, "the hell with it! Every man for himself!" Those children that we let fall through the cracks become tomorrow's problems. Yes, I know that a lot of these children are already on their way to becoming problems. However, it will be much worse if we as a society choose to not provide for children whose families won't provide for them.
I'm wondering, do all of you think that anyone who sends there kids to public school, and not a private one, is poor?
This is also true. If you really want to do something about paying for poor people's kids, then you should make sure they have access to condoms and all sorts of chemical birth control at free birth control and safe sex clinics IMO. Ones where teens don't need their parents permission to go also.
Guess where those clinics would need to be located? Minorities are massively over-represented among the poor. Can you even imagine the raging cries of racism if your proposal were actually ever done?
That said, being realistic, I have to accept that the poor/uneducated will always have way way way more kids than they can support. It happens in countries that have social safety nets and countries without social safety nets. Have you ever been to a 3rd world country lately? Most of them have no welfare programs, and their poor pump out kids like there is no tomorrow.
Look, all people respond to economic incentives. The poor in third-world countries do have a lot of children, but the economic incentives are different in a third-world country compared to a first-world country. In a third-world country you need a lot of children. Those children are there for two reasons. First, because there is a huge need for labor in more agricultural economies. And secondly, to take care of you when you get old.
If you look at the Amish in America. Their livelihood comes mostly from "hand-made" goods, such as quilts. Those quilts are made in Amish homes, by Amish women and girls. I'm not even talking teenagers, I'm talking Amish kids working alongside their mothers making quilts and other hand-made goods. The more "hands" the family has, the more quilts and other goods they can produce. Which means the more money they will have.
The reason hand-made goods aren't sold much anymore, is that there would be an incredibly high cost to produce those goods relative to manufactured goods because of the amount of time it takes to produce them. If you were to take all of the labor-hours spent making those quilts, the people making them would be earning far less than minimum wage. But since the labor is coming from family members(mostly children), then there is no real labor cost.
At one time, people believed that children were wealth. Because in a very real sense, children really were wealth. Children were basically a labor force that could bring considerable revenue into a family. At least that was the case when children were allowed to work.
The reason why most people don't have many children(if they have any at all), has to do with the costs of having children. Children are now a huge economic burden, with no economic benefits. Children don't work. And when children do work, their income doesn't go to the family. And you don't even need them to take care of you when you get old.
So then there are two questions. Why then do people have children at all? And secondly, why then do poor people in America have so many children? Considering they don't need them for their labor?
Well, people have children for a few reasons. One is simply accidental, one is because they like children, and third because there is a social or economic benefit to having them. But all of these reasons tie into each other. For instance, you might like children but recognize that your economic or social situation isn't conducive to having a child, and so you take extra precautions to make sure you don't accidentally get pregnant.
The reason poor people have children, is that there really aren't any economic or social consequences for having them. In truth, there are many economic benefits for the poor who have children. From food stamps to housing assistance to medicaid to tax credits and more. Poor kids can qualify for clothing allowances, and even they can get Christmas presents bought for them. If you talk to a social worker, they will tell you that many women will get pregnant roughly every two years so they can keep getting medicaid.
With all of that said, this thread and pre-k is idiotic. There is no evidence that kids going to school at an earlier and earlier age has any impact on their success later in life. In fact, there is some evidence that sending children away from home at any early age negatively affects their emotional well-being.
All education programs when you really think about them, are one of two things. Daycare for those who think they are getting it for free, and a way of indoctrinating children to make them who their government wants them to be. Trust me, the history of public education is all about social-engineering and egalitarianism. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual education(go read about it). Home-schooled kids far outpace their public-school counterparts, regardless of parental income.
Look, all people respond to economic incentives. The poor in third-world countries do have a lot of children, but the economic incentives are different in a third-world country compared to a first-world country. In a third-world country you need a lot of children. Those children are there for two reasons. First, because there is a huge need for labor in more agricultural economies. And secondly, to take care of you when you get old.
I'll add a third reason: third-world countries have high infant mortality rates. The poor in third-world countries have a lot of children because many children do not survive. We don't have that problem here in the U.S.
Quote:
In truth, there are many economic benefits for the poor who have children. From food stamps to housing assistance to medicaid to tax credits and more. Poor kids can qualify for clothing allowances, and even they can get Christmas presents bought for them. If you talk to a social worker, they will tell you that many women will get pregnant roughly every two years so they can keep getting medicaid.
Exactly.
Quote:
With all of that said, this thread and pre-k is idiotic. There is no evidence that kids going to school at an earlier and earlier age has any impact on their success later in life. In fact, there is some evidence that sending children away from home at any early age negatively affects their emotional well-being.
All education programs when you really think about them, are one of two things. Daycare for those who think they are getting it for free, and a way of indoctrinating children to make them who their government wants them to be. Trust me, the history of public education is all about social-engineering and egalitarianism. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual education(go read about it). Home-schooled kids far outpace their public-school counterparts, regardless of parental income.
I know I go against even some Conservatives on this, and nearly all liberals, but when this country started rewarding the poor who have kids, it started down not just a dangerous path. But an extremely stupid one.
Why in the hell do we look for ways to reward those who knowingly have kids, yet can barely take care of themselves? Most of these situations arent people who accidentally get pregnant. (and let's be honest, you dont ever "accidentally" get pregnant. We all know the possible out come of sex). Giving these people handouts and rewards for having kids is like rewarding your dog for getting himself into trouble or making a mess. Now people not just expect it, but they want more and more. And if you dont want to do more, you hate the poor or hate the children.
Personal responsibility no longer exists. People are afraid to say on national tv that you should not have kids if you can't afford it, and you should no longer be rewarded.
So i guess you want us to be like a real conservative country, China, and have a one child limit.....
...for all, cause you never know when someone's life might take a turn for the worst.............
So then there are two questions. Why then do people have children at all? And secondly, why then do poor people in America have so many children?
Many have children because (they think that) it is god's command to them, and the poor, tend to be more religious, then most (In many households, all they have is faith).
If I could ignore it, I would. But when we tax payers have to foot the bill, then it should not be ignored. It needs to be talked about. What good is ignoring it or saying "ok, here's some more tax payer funded stuff"?
Too many times in this country, we are either supposed to ignore or practically reward poor decisions. Or go about it the wrong way instead. Personal responsibility always seems to be low on the totem pole.
Odd that you say this. Do you also find it difficult to ignore corporate welfare?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
