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.
Regardless of if you hate that term or not, the reality is they ARE Medicaid babies.
I have brought this topic up before but before any meaningful discussion is made the left always want to throw more money at the problem and the right want to cut people off cold Turkey. Neither side seriously want to deal with the problem of perpetual and generational poverty.
Yes. Too much polarization. This is a nuanced problem. Not a soundbite.
The system is set up in a way that rewards irresponsible behavior. There is also the matter of extrem ignorance amongst the generationally poor. I have some examples if you want to discuss.
Provide good education and training opportunities for everyone and a solid public safety net and you'll see more people move up into the middle class. Its no coincidence that the developed countries with the highest number of teenage pregnancies are countries like America with the weakest safety net in the developed world.
Not true.
Education doesn't not create jobs.
It doesn't matter how many "educated/trained" people you have, that alone does not create jobs. There are more educated people here than there are jobs for them.
You must have an environment that entices employers to create jobs.
It doesn't matter how many "educated/trained" people you have, that alone does not create jobs. There are more educated people here than there are jobs for them.
You must have an environment that entices employers to create jobs.
A better educated workforce is a more productive workforce and entice companies to move there to harness this advantage. A better educated public also is a more informed public and on average have much higher incomes and fewer children. An educated public is also less likely to support legalized bribery/big money in politics and support measures to reduce the power of big money in our political system.
Regardless of if you hate that term or not, the reality is they ARE Medicaid babies.
I have brought this topic up before but before any meaningful discussion is made the left always want to throw more money at the problem and the right want to cut people off cold Turkey. Neither side seriously want to deal with the problem of perpetual and generational poverty.
This is probably a fairly innocuous post, compared to some you have made.
I have read many of your comments, and I have given you the benefit of the doubt, due to your claims to be a great humanitarian, but I am just about over it.
I have seen you say that you wish for the death of ACA to punish people who voted for Trump, without for one moment considering the fact that they may have believed him when he said he planned to make sure everyone had healthcare. Worse, you didn't give a rat's buttocks that killing that program would hurt millions who voted against Trump.
I have seen you ask "what's wrong with eugenics?" as though you have no idea of the abuses that kind of thinking has led to in the course of human history.
I have seen you say you refuse to accept that the poor will always be with us, while your solutions seemed to advocate not assistance with poverty, but the elimination of those who live with it.
I am so angry right now that I can barely see my computer screen, for impending tears of rage. You lament the election of Trump, but almost every time you touch your keyboard, you express the kind of elitist views that helped him get elected.
I don't care what you claim to have done to help the poor, as I can't see it for myself. All I can see is your words, and you talk about poor people like they are cattle.
I hate it when you call yourself a liberal, as I do not wish to share that designation with you and your self-satisfied, smug little view of the world.
I will probably get an infraction for this, but I don't really care. It was worth it to get this off my chest.
Poor and lower-middle class people have always had more children no matter the society. We have to ensure they're born into a system where they can move up the economic ladder and not be relegated to low-income service work for life.
But they don't. 70% of them never rise above poverty level, even as adults. It's futile and ultimately self-destructive as a nation to coddle and artificially financially support the behavior of irresponsible pregnancies and births. Especially when there are plenty of resources for free or extremely low-cost contraception via the thousands of public health department family planning clinics.
Do the math... Who thinks supporting all those additional poor people (Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, etc., etc.) that are added to our population every year is sustainable, or even possible at all? What's the proposal for funding food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for all those who will never be self-supporting their entire lives?
I can only say one thing: Support planned parenthood!
Completely false. Public Health Department Clinics, nationwide, already funded by taxpayers, FAR out number PP facilities, by multiple times. PP is redundant, and not necessary.
Thats not accurate. First of all, America spend far more on security as part of the education budget than other countries. And there are still plenty of countries that spend more per pupil overall. America is also the only country that fund schools through property taxes, so the zip code a child is born in determines the funding. The wealthier the neighborhood, the better funded schools, when the children born into poor neighborhoods are the children most in need of well funded schools.
And will forever be. Can you imagine the impact on the real estate market if a house can no longer command hundreds of thousands more because it is in a "good school" district? Granted, some districts have such a low quality of students that no amount of money could fix them (and some already spend a lot per student), but others could benefit.
Last edited by pvande55; 03-25-2017 at 03:27 PM..
Reason: Add lines
A better educated workforce is a more productive workforce and entice companies to move there to harness this advantage. A better educated public also is a more informed public and on average have much higher incomes and fewer children. An educated public is also less likely to support legalized bribery/big money in politics and support measures to reduce the power of big money in our political system.
And yet we have one of the most educated populations in history, and here we are, steadily going backwards as a society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
Thats not accurate. First of all, America spend far more on security as part of the education budget than other countries. And there are still plenty of countries that spend more per pupil overall. America is also the only country that fund schools through property taxes, so the zip code a child is born in determines the funding. The wealthier the neighborhood, the better funded schools, when the children born into poor neighborhoods are the children most in need of well funded schools.
I know of a school district that spent more per student than and other district in the state, and continued to have some of the worst test scores.
We need to recognize that money won't solve our education problems among the chronic underachievers.
I don't see why our citizen poor should have abortion clinics in their neighborhoods to entice them to abort their children when we roll out the red carpet for illegal aliens who are having 5 or 6 kids for us to support and they have no reason to want an abortion when it comes to an anchor and a public assistance check to help support the family.
I hate the term "Medicaid baby." I hate the term "anchor baby."
A baby is a baby. All come into this world equally precious, and equally deserving of care, no matter what their parents did, no matter where they came from. What kind of mind holds the child responsible for the errors of the parents?
The worst of all, to me, is people who care passionately about babies in utero, but stop giving a damn about them once they slide from between their mother's legs. Wanna be pro-life? Great! Just don't that stance end with the child's birth.
Who's holding the children responsible for the errors of their parents? Medicaid baby simply means the taxpayer paid for them because the parents wouldn't or couldn't. Anchor baby simply means their parents here illegally hoped to anchor themselves onto our country by giving birth on our soil. It's no reflection on the babies but the irresponsible parents.
Being pro-life is an objection to killing unborn babies and that has nothing to do with the objection of forcing the taxpayer to care for them after they are born. Again, it's a reflection on the irresponsible parents not the babies themselves.
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.
