Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Huge Numbers of U.S. Children Live In Poverty: Proof Capitalism Has Failed
New data released from the 2000 Census document the shameful
number of poor children in desperate need all across ourcountry.
number of poor children in desperate need all across ourcountry.
Congress Must Act to Rescue Children Living in Poverty byMarian Wright Edelman
"It is a question of a fair balance between your present
abundance and their need." So wrote Paul to the Corinthians
when they had lost their enthusiasm for giving money to help
the poor of the Jerusalem church.
It is the very same issue we face today in the United
States: will we work for a fair balance between those who
currently have an abundance of riches and those who are indire need?
New data released from the 2000 Census document the shameful
number of poor children in desperate need all across ourcountry.
In some counties, an astounding three out of five childrenare living in poverty.
Most of us tend to picture poor children living in big
cities, but there are 38 counties with child poverty rates
higher than in the poorest big cities. Almost all of them
are rural counties: South Dakota's Buffalo County, Zieback
County and Shannon County all have child poverty rates of 61percent or more.
In nine states and the District of Columbia, at least one in
five children is poor. Shamefully in the capital of the free
world, within the shadows of the White House and Congress,
almost one in three children is poor. Twenty-seven percent
of Mississippi's children and 26.6 percent of Louisiana's
children are poor. One in four of New Mexico's children and
one in five of New York's children is poor.It's time for America to do better.
A majority of poor children live in working families trying
to play by the rules and to escape welfare. Children like
Tony, Michael and Tasha. Their mother, Tina, is on a
workfare program and homeless. She has been struggling to
get her family back on its feet since she and her husband
separated and he stopped paying child support.
They moved into her sister's low-income housing apartment.
Tina applied for public assistance and obtained Medicaid for
herself and her children and began a work program.
After Tina and her children had been living in her sister's
home for nearly three years, the housing authorities told
them that the apartment was overcrowded and that Tina and
her children had to leave right away. They moved into the
home of another relative, but the conditions there were evenmore overcrowded.
Thus, ironically, while Tina was still working and complying
with welfare laws, she and her children became homeless. In
the homeless shelter, they joined other families suffering
from the stress and chaos homelessness produces.
Tina's children now struggle to survive amid the instability
of shelter life, leaving the shelter for school while their
mother leaves for her "welfare-to-work" job. The Census data
reveal that nearly 12 million American children face the
kind of poverty that Tina's children do.
Why do we not act to end this child deprivation?
Congress has the opportunity right now to alleviate child
poverty by approving welfare reform and child care
legislation that better helps families support their
children and gives children the sound start they need to
avoid future dependency. The goal of welfare reform should
be to help families escape poverty not just escape from thewelfare rolls.
Will Congress work for a fair balance between those with
abundance and those in great need?
Rather than helping children and families in poverty and
working to achieve a just balance in the budget between the
rich and the poor, the Bush administration's budget choices
leave millions of children behind; favor powerful corporate
interests and the wealthiest taxpayers over children's
urgent needs; and widen the gap between rich and poor _
already at its largest recorded point in more than 30 years.
Congress approved a $1.3 trillion tax plan in 2001. Just the
money spent for the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans with average incomes of more than $1 million could
lift millions of children in working families from poverty,
and provide quality child care, Head Start, after-school
programs, health care, nutrition and protections against
child abuse and neglect and homelessness.
It is time for us to demand that the truly needy child
living in South Dakota and the child who wants to bring a
friend home after school but can't because home is a
homeless shelter, go to the front rather than remain at the
back of the line behind the truly non-needy.
Wright Edelman is president of the Children's Defense Fund,
whose mission is to "Leave No Child Behind."
"It is a question of a fair balance between your present
abundance and their need." So wrote Paul to the Corinthians
when they had lost their enthusiasm for giving money to help
the poor of the Jerusalem church.
It is the very same issue we face today in the United
States: will we work for a fair balance between those who
currently have an abundance of riches and those who are indire need?
New data released from the 2000 Census document the shameful
number of poor children in desperate need all across ourcountry.
In some counties, an astounding three out of five childrenare living in poverty.
Most of us tend to picture poor children living in big
cities, but there are 38 counties with child poverty rates
higher than in the poorest big cities. Almost all of them
are rural counties: South Dakota's Buffalo County, Zieback
County and Shannon County all have child poverty rates of 61percent or more.
In nine states and the District of Columbia, at least one in
five children is poor. Shamefully in the capital of the free
world, within the shadows of the White House and Congress,
almost one in three children is poor. Twenty-seven percent
of Mississippi's children and 26.6 percent of Louisiana's
children are poor. One in four of New Mexico's children and
one in five of New York's children is poor.It's time for America to do better.
A majority of poor children live in working families trying
to play by the rules and to escape welfare. Children like
Tony, Michael and Tasha. Their mother, Tina, is on a
workfare program and homeless. She has been struggling to
get her family back on its feet since she and her husband
separated and he stopped paying child support.
They moved into her sister's low-income housing apartment.
Tina applied for public assistance and obtained Medicaid for
herself and her children and began a work program.
After Tina and her children had been living in her sister's
home for nearly three years, the housing authorities told
them that the apartment was overcrowded and that Tina and
her children had to leave right away. They moved into the
home of another relative, but the conditions there were evenmore overcrowded.
Thus, ironically, while Tina was still working and complying
with welfare laws, she and her children became homeless. In
the homeless shelter, they joined other families suffering
from the stress and chaos homelessness produces.
Tina's children now struggle to survive amid the instability
of shelter life, leaving the shelter for school while their
mother leaves for her "welfare-to-work" job. The Census data
reveal that nearly 12 million American children face the
kind of poverty that Tina's children do.
Why do we not act to end this child deprivation?
Congress has the opportunity right now to alleviate child
poverty by approving welfare reform and child care
legislation that better helps families support their
children and gives children the sound start they need to
avoid future dependency. The goal of welfare reform should
be to help families escape poverty not just escape from thewelfare rolls.
Will Congress work for a fair balance between those with
abundance and those in great need?
Rather than helping children and families in poverty and
working to achieve a just balance in the budget between the
rich and the poor, the Bush administration's budget choices
leave millions of children behind; favor powerful corporate
interests and the wealthiest taxpayers over children's
urgent needs; and widen the gap between rich and poor _
already at its largest recorded point in more than 30 years.
Congress approved a $1.3 trillion tax plan in 2001. Just the
money spent for the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans with average incomes of more than $1 million could
lift millions of children in working families from poverty,
and provide quality child care, Head Start, after-school
programs, health care, nutrition and protections against
child abuse and neglect and homelessness.
It is time for us to demand that the truly needy child
living in South Dakota and the child who wants to bring a
friend home after school but can't because home is a
homeless shelter, go to the front rather than remain at the
back of the line behind the truly non-needy.
Wright Edelman is president of the Children's Defense Fund,
whose mission is to "Leave No Child Behind."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
read this and weep.
The failure of "The Great Society" has shown that throwing money at a problem isn't the solution. Our country has spent billions upon billions of dollars to help the poor, yet we still have poor people.
Blaming Bush doesn't feed anyone. Poverty was with us under Clinton. I wonder, did Ms. Edelman point the finger of blame at him, too?
I personally don't believe we will ever eliminate poverty. But, we can continue to do more to help our neighbor. People caring enough to help their fellow man; the solution is to care.
Blaming Bush doesn't feed anyone. Poverty was with us under Clinton. I wonder, did Ms. Edelman point the finger of blame at him, too?
I personally don't believe we will ever eliminate poverty. But, we can continue to do more to help our neighbor. People caring enough to help their fellow man; the solution is to care.
Yes, quinn, and "we've" thrown huge amounts of money into curing cancer, and guess what, cancer still exists. According to your logic, we should stop pouring resources into finding a cure. In saying this I'm not arguing that a new "Great Society" would significantly ameliorate poverty over the long-term; I'm just pointing out the illogic of your "argument".
The "Great Society" was a band-aid on a gaping structural sore, placed and then pulled off as the sore was growing for reasons independent of the Great Society. Starting in the late 50's and 60's, and really picking up steam in the 70's, capital massively disinvested from manufacturing, particularly in urban America. These jobs were the "ticket" for millions and their loss has been replaced by low-paying service jobs.
America's post-war boom lasted until 1973. Between 1973-1995, real wages declined in the US. Between 1995-2000, during the speculative "new economy" bubble/boom real wages saw only a small bump upward. For millions whatever gain in wages was overwhelmingly counter-weighted by rising rents and housing prices. In California, poverty rates actually rose during the 90's. Now, with the recession allegedly over (ha!) we see declining wages, social-spending cuts, massive housing costs, rising medical costs, and no signs of a new "take-off", let alone massive re-investment that is the only basis upon which, under capitalism, the poor will rise out of poverty.
The "Great Society" was a band-aid on a gaping structural sore, placed and then pulled off as the sore was growing for reasons independent of the Great Society. Starting in the late 50's and 60's, and really picking up steam in the 70's, capital massively disinvested from manufacturing, particularly in urban America. These jobs were the "ticket" for millions and their loss has been replaced by low-paying service jobs.
America's post-war boom lasted until 1973. Between 1973-1995, real wages declined in the US. Between 1995-2000, during the speculative "new economy" bubble/boom real wages saw only a small bump upward. For millions whatever gain in wages was overwhelmingly counter-weighted by rising rents and housing prices. In California, poverty rates actually rose during the 90's. Now, with the recession allegedly over (ha!) we see declining wages, social-spending cuts, massive housing costs, rising medical costs, and no signs of a new "take-off", let alone massive re-investment that is the only basis upon which, under capitalism, the poor will rise out of poverty.
>I'm just pointing out the illogic of your "argument".
There is nothing illogical about my argument.
Cancer is a disease. People are not.
Blaming capitalism is not the answer. Socialism and communism also had many, many poor. Anarchy would also have poor. I will not discuss these truths any further.
My answer for poverty remains: People caring enough to help their fellow man; the solution is to care.
There is nothing illogical about my argument.
Cancer is a disease. People are not.
Blaming capitalism is not the answer. Socialism and communism also had many, many poor. Anarchy would also have poor. I will not discuss these truths any further.
My answer for poverty remains: People caring enough to help their fellow man; the solution is to care.
I am a working mother on welfare,I've recently chosen to care for my 12 year old at risk daughter who has mental health issues at home rather than institutionalizing her.I was able to get out of my work contract because our therapist wrote a letter stating that this was necessary.I cannot live on the welfare grant,why can't "they" pay me to care for my child at home the same amount of money that a institution would get for her care?I think she has a much better chance of becoming a whole person at home with community support than in a institution where she would be fed unbelievable amounts of drugs and basically controlled,subdued.I live in a community where there is great wealth and extreme poverty,most poor people around here are being displaced by gentrification,rising rents and lack of housing and employment.I and many other brave women and men and children who are on the front lines in the war on poor people don't have a chance,we're the first to go.
It is the essance of Christianity.
It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It is Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritian, showing us who is our neighbor.
To care for each other is something that can be practiced under any form of government or non-government as case may be. I don't need a government program to care for my neighbor. I don't need premission from my government to care for my neighbor. I don't need a revolution to care for my neighbor. What I need to do is care for my neighbor.
If more people put God first, others second, and themselves last, the world would be a better place. There are some super rich who do, there are some middle class who do, there are some dirt poor who do, so it is not a class thing. It's not a race thing. It's not a gender thing. It's "Where is your heart?" Is your treasure laid up here on earth, or do you have your treasure laid up in heaven? The choice is yours. It always has been.
It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It is Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritian, showing us who is our neighbor.
To care for each other is something that can be practiced under any form of government or non-government as case may be. I don't need a government program to care for my neighbor. I don't need premission from my government to care for my neighbor. I don't need a revolution to care for my neighbor. What I need to do is care for my neighbor.
If more people put God first, others second, and themselves last, the world would be a better place. There are some super rich who do, there are some middle class who do, there are some dirt poor who do, so it is not a class thing. It's not a race thing. It's not a gender thing. It's "Where is your heart?" Is your treasure laid up here on earth, or do you have your treasure laid up in heaven? The choice is yours. It always has been.
I must agree with you. To say "I care" means nothing. Actions speak. The things you are doing are the very things we all should be doing if we are able. For doing what you are able to do, I commend you. The world needs more people like you.
I, too, do not let the words of others distract from my goals or speaking my mind. I can tell you are someone who is focused. Though I understand that writing here can take up time from other things, I want to encourage you to do as much here as you can; to not leave. Your writings are very insightful. I respect your opinion. There are others here who feel the same way.
I, too, do not let the words of others distract from my goals or speaking my mind. I can tell you are someone who is focused. Though I understand that writing here can take up time from other things, I want to encourage you to do as much here as you can; to not leave. Your writings are very insightful. I respect your opinion. There are others here who feel the same way.
It's because of nonsense like quinn's that the world is so messed up now. Organized religion is the problem, not the solution.
<If more people put God first, others second, and themselves last, the world would be a better place.>
This is also the mantra of airplane hijackers and suicide bombers everywhere. God is first, so it's ok to kill the heathens; and heaven awaits me for my ordained deed.
<your treasure laid up here on earth, or do you have your treasure laid up in heaven?>
Sounds like the al-Quada marketing slogan.
The separation of church and state, my friend, is the only thing that wards off the barbarism of organized religion.
Fealty to "God" leads to Church priest scandals, as well as the religious wars raging everywhere now-- what Katha Pollitt calls "seventeenth century religious war with twenty first century weapons."
Spirituality is fine, but if that's what you're looking for, try Buddhism, not this judgmental deist baloney.
<If more people put God first, others second, and themselves last, the world would be a better place.>
This is also the mantra of airplane hijackers and suicide bombers everywhere. God is first, so it's ok to kill the heathens; and heaven awaits me for my ordained deed.
<your treasure laid up here on earth, or do you have your treasure laid up in heaven?>
Sounds like the al-Quada marketing slogan.
The separation of church and state, my friend, is the only thing that wards off the barbarism of organized religion.
Fealty to "God" leads to Church priest scandals, as well as the religious wars raging everywhere now-- what Katha Pollitt calls "seventeenth century religious war with twenty first century weapons."
Spirituality is fine, but if that's what you're looking for, try Buddhism, not this judgmental deist baloney.
Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with God.
Good Luck.
Good Luck.
I passed your message onto God, and here is his response:
Quinn: Could you leave me out of this? I'm real busy; all these blasted hijackers and suicide bombers are crashing the place, looking for virgins and luscious fruits and all sorts of other handouts. Where did they get my name, anyway? What do I look like, an ATM machine?
And all these priests chasing cherubs around the clowds, drooling on their cassocks all the while. What a bunch of weirdos.
So, please; don't go blabbing my name.
Quinn: Could you leave me out of this? I'm real busy; all these blasted hijackers and suicide bombers are crashing the place, looking for virgins and luscious fruits and all sorts of other handouts. Where did they get my name, anyway? What do I look like, an ATM machine?
And all these priests chasing cherubs around the clowds, drooling on their cassocks all the while. What a bunch of weirdos.
So, please; don't go blabbing my name.
I'd say you're gonna burn in hell for all that blasphemy mikey.
But hey, I'll see ya there.
But hey, I'll see ya there.
Here's a better solution to poverty! Hey Girls out there! CLOSE YOUR GODDAMM LEGS TO GUYS THAT WILL FUCK YOU AND LEAVE YOU! If you can't then try to use birth control!We can not be burdend by irresponsalbe people, that and drug abuse are the main causes of poverty in the U.S., not becouse there's not anough wellfare!
Men make a far greater contribution to "single mom" pregnancy by brutally abusing, mistreating and impregnating women.
women would have greater access to birth control if the republicans, prodded by the "religous" right, would allow it.
unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse cause poverty? I defy you to cite one scientific study that proves it.
poverty is an effect of the social structure. the question is not "why do people fall into poverty?" "but why is there poverty to fall into?"
The idea that women have babies to get welfare is absurd and repulsive.
More access to birth control? We don't live in the highlands of Burkina Faso, numbnuts. Take a walk down to the corner store and get yourself some condoms. Plus, thanks to the Democrats and the "progressive" left, you can now have all the abortions you want. Birth control and killing innocents! Sounds like a lefty's 2-for-1 dream!
<More access to birth control? We don't live in the highlands of Burkina Faso, numbnuts. Take a walk down to the corner store and get yourself some condoms. Plus, thanks to the Democrats and the "progressive" left, you can now have all the abortions you want. Birth control and killing innocents! Sounds like a lefty's 2-for-1 dream!>
Access to birth control for women through health plans and public high schools is spotty at best.
Moreover, Republican-sponsored "education" that stresses chastity is a joke and prevents teenage girls from getting the information they need to ward off male predators (who more often than not grow up to be Republicans and scapegoat poor people).
"All the abortions you want?" Terrorist harassment of women and doctors by rightists has essentially made abortion unavailable in most of the country.
"Killing innocents"? Tell it to the women whose lives you've ruined through your punitive and racist "welfare reform."
Got any scientific studies to back up your toxic blasts of hot air?
Access to birth control for women through health plans and public high schools is spotty at best.
Moreover, Republican-sponsored "education" that stresses chastity is a joke and prevents teenage girls from getting the information they need to ward off male predators (who more often than not grow up to be Republicans and scapegoat poor people).
"All the abortions you want?" Terrorist harassment of women and doctors by rightists has essentially made abortion unavailable in most of the country.
"Killing innocents"? Tell it to the women whose lives you've ruined through your punitive and racist "welfare reform."
Got any scientific studies to back up your toxic blasts of hot air?
mike,
Let me go over some things you said and let you fill in the blanks if I'm missing something.
>Men make a far greater contribution to "single mom" pregnancy by brutally abusing, mistreating and impregnating women.
I would agree their are men who abuse women. I would agree are men who mistreat women. It definitely takes two to tango. But a single woman who would willingly have sex with someone without determining whether or not that man is going to stick around and help provide and care for a child should one be conceived is taking a big risk. I know a marriage license is just a piece of paper, but it does at least hold the promise of commitment behind it.
>women would have greater access to birth control if the republicans, prodded by the "religious" right, would allow it.
How? It's not the role of the government to provide birth control to anyone, let's get that notion out of the way. Couldn't privately funded organizations provide women the information they need? or a doctor? Blaming religious people won't solve your problems. First of all, it's not true. I look around I see hospitals built by religious people, I don't see the ACLU Memorial Hospital. And they don't care of your religious affiliation or if your an atheist. You can still be admitted as a patient. So that tells me religious people are interested in the health of people. Religious people pay their taxes too. Why shouldn't they have a say in how their money is spent?
>unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse cause poverty? I defy you to cite one scientific study that proves it.
I don't know if there's a study out there are not. With enough time and effort you can make a study read about any way you want it to anyway. I believe we could all agree that unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse certainly does not aid someone who is in poverty or on the verge of poverty.
>poverty is an effect of the social structure. the question is not "why do people fall into poverty?" "but why is there poverty to fall into?"
An interesting question, but I'm not seeing the substance. If you are indicating that the government should provide some type of safety net to ensure that no one falls into poverty, you're treading into an area that many of us see as an economic meltdown. My biggest problem with government run social programs is that they are economically unfeasible. I believe organizations that are privately funded would be much more effective and cost efficient. Many grudgingly pay their taxes, a main reason being that we know there is so much wasted. By the time we give $1.00 to the government to assist the poor, the poor only get a fraction of it. I'm much rather take that money and give it to an organization who will help those in need in my own community. If it turns out that organization isn't working efficiently, I'll find another. That puts services and accountability at the local level, not in Wash. D.C.
>The idea that women have babies to get welfare is absurd and repulsive.
I'm not buying into that anytime soon. I've seen too many reports and documentaries over the years where women have said they intentionally have more children in order to receive additional income. My guess is others here have too.
>Access to birth control for women through health plans and public high schools is spotty at best.
The only thing I wish to address here is public high schools. I don't want my kids receiving sex education in school. School is to prepare you for your adult life, to teach you the skills you need in order to contribute to society. Math, English, Science, Social Studies, History, Foreign Language, Phys Ed, Band, Chorus, Art, Athletics, Shop, Typing, ........ these types of things help create a well rounded student. I don't want my tax dollars funding sex education. I don't want my tax dollars to be used to purchase and hand out contraceptives to students.
>Moreover, Republican-sponsored "education" that stresses chastity is a joke and prevents teenage girls from getting the information they need to ward off male predators (who more often than not grow up to be Republicans and scapegoat poor people).
Information they need to ward off male predators? How much information do you need to say "No"?
And I don't wish to disappoint you, but "scapegoat(ing) poor people" knows no politics. People who would take advantage of others for whatever reason are scum. I've met scum of every political affiliation.
>"All the abortions you want?" Terrorist harassment of women and doctors by rightists has essentially made abortion unavailable in most of the country.
Where? My job takes me all over the country and have yet to find where a woman can't obtain an abortion.
>"Killing innocents"? Tell it to the women whose lives you've ruined through your punitive and racist "welfare reform."
I find no bases upon which to call welfare reform "racist", so to discuss that would be futile. I think people want welfare to return back to it's original intent. I don't see why that would upset you.
It is my understanding that welfare was instigated to assist families who had a "bread-winning" member who was injured or disabled to be able to receive an income to maintain their way of life. I realized that's an oversimplification, but believe that, in essence, to be the intent. Mike, lets say you get injured and you have a wife and two kids and you can't work. I, as a fellow American, have no problem having a portion of my tax money go into a fund to help people who have fallen into those circumstances. The problem came when it became the actual source of income for people who were able to work, they just didn't want to work.
An example, my Dad owned a rental home and had rented out to a couple with about 4 or 5 kids. They collected welfare, and it was their sole income. They were able to work, but didn't. They told my Dad they made more money collecting welfare than they would be able to make should they actually work. There's where the problem lies.
BTW, if you're that Mike who does the stuff about conspiracy theories and outer space, you do some really funny stuff. Wasn't sure, there have been at least one other "Mike" on here recently.
Let me go over some things you said and let you fill in the blanks if I'm missing something.
>Men make a far greater contribution to "single mom" pregnancy by brutally abusing, mistreating and impregnating women.
I would agree their are men who abuse women. I would agree are men who mistreat women. It definitely takes two to tango. But a single woman who would willingly have sex with someone without determining whether or not that man is going to stick around and help provide and care for a child should one be conceived is taking a big risk. I know a marriage license is just a piece of paper, but it does at least hold the promise of commitment behind it.
>women would have greater access to birth control if the republicans, prodded by the "religious" right, would allow it.
How? It's not the role of the government to provide birth control to anyone, let's get that notion out of the way. Couldn't privately funded organizations provide women the information they need? or a doctor? Blaming religious people won't solve your problems. First of all, it's not true. I look around I see hospitals built by religious people, I don't see the ACLU Memorial Hospital. And they don't care of your religious affiliation or if your an atheist. You can still be admitted as a patient. So that tells me religious people are interested in the health of people. Religious people pay their taxes too. Why shouldn't they have a say in how their money is spent?
>unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse cause poverty? I defy you to cite one scientific study that proves it.
I don't know if there's a study out there are not. With enough time and effort you can make a study read about any way you want it to anyway. I believe we could all agree that unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse certainly does not aid someone who is in poverty or on the verge of poverty.
>poverty is an effect of the social structure. the question is not "why do people fall into poverty?" "but why is there poverty to fall into?"
An interesting question, but I'm not seeing the substance. If you are indicating that the government should provide some type of safety net to ensure that no one falls into poverty, you're treading into an area that many of us see as an economic meltdown. My biggest problem with government run social programs is that they are economically unfeasible. I believe organizations that are privately funded would be much more effective and cost efficient. Many grudgingly pay their taxes, a main reason being that we know there is so much wasted. By the time we give $1.00 to the government to assist the poor, the poor only get a fraction of it. I'm much rather take that money and give it to an organization who will help those in need in my own community. If it turns out that organization isn't working efficiently, I'll find another. That puts services and accountability at the local level, not in Wash. D.C.
>The idea that women have babies to get welfare is absurd and repulsive.
I'm not buying into that anytime soon. I've seen too many reports and documentaries over the years where women have said they intentionally have more children in order to receive additional income. My guess is others here have too.
>Access to birth control for women through health plans and public high schools is spotty at best.
The only thing I wish to address here is public high schools. I don't want my kids receiving sex education in school. School is to prepare you for your adult life, to teach you the skills you need in order to contribute to society. Math, English, Science, Social Studies, History, Foreign Language, Phys Ed, Band, Chorus, Art, Athletics, Shop, Typing, ........ these types of things help create a well rounded student. I don't want my tax dollars funding sex education. I don't want my tax dollars to be used to purchase and hand out contraceptives to students.
>Moreover, Republican-sponsored "education" that stresses chastity is a joke and prevents teenage girls from getting the information they need to ward off male predators (who more often than not grow up to be Republicans and scapegoat poor people).
Information they need to ward off male predators? How much information do you need to say "No"?
And I don't wish to disappoint you, but "scapegoat(ing) poor people" knows no politics. People who would take advantage of others for whatever reason are scum. I've met scum of every political affiliation.
>"All the abortions you want?" Terrorist harassment of women and doctors by rightists has essentially made abortion unavailable in most of the country.
Where? My job takes me all over the country and have yet to find where a woman can't obtain an abortion.
>"Killing innocents"? Tell it to the women whose lives you've ruined through your punitive and racist "welfare reform."
I find no bases upon which to call welfare reform "racist", so to discuss that would be futile. I think people want welfare to return back to it's original intent. I don't see why that would upset you.
It is my understanding that welfare was instigated to assist families who had a "bread-winning" member who was injured or disabled to be able to receive an income to maintain their way of life. I realized that's an oversimplification, but believe that, in essence, to be the intent. Mike, lets say you get injured and you have a wife and two kids and you can't work. I, as a fellow American, have no problem having a portion of my tax money go into a fund to help people who have fallen into those circumstances. The problem came when it became the actual source of income for people who were able to work, they just didn't want to work.
An example, my Dad owned a rental home and had rented out to a couple with about 4 or 5 kids. They collected welfare, and it was their sole income. They were able to work, but didn't. They told my Dad they made more money collecting welfare than they would be able to make should they actually work. There's where the problem lies.
BTW, if you're that Mike who does the stuff about conspiracy theories and outer space, you do some really funny stuff. Wasn't sure, there have been at least one other "Mike" on here recently.
A recent study reported that 10% of those recently kicked off welfare are now homeless.
The official unemployment rate is now approximately 6%. However, these figures count as employed those that work only a few hours a week. Those who've been unemployed for more than 6 months are considered "structurally unemployed" and aren't counted in official stats. (In a similar fashion, offical inflation figures no longer count housing which is the single biggest, and fastest growing, expense for most working class people) In other words, real unemployment is probably about 10%, and much much higher in many areas in this country. In lieu of some sort of assistance, what the fuck are all these unemployed people supposed to do? Historically, the capitalist class has seen it as in it's interest to make some out-lays to lessen the likelihood of unrest. The US capitalist class, today, however, is so avaricious and myopic (and, i'll agree, beset by competitive pressures) that it can't see past the next quarter, let alone see to it that there is some minimal cushion for the many victims of the vaunted market.
Rightists who complain about welfare frequently invoke the idea "that the government doesn't owe you anything". But rarely do I hear complaints about mortgage subsidies (in the form of tax-breaks) that middle and upper-middle class people massively benefit from. Nor do I hear much in the way of complaints about massive subsidies that go to virtually every faction of big capital. Indeed, as capital becomes more and more mobile it is able to extract more and more from the state in return for investment. It is common practise for city governments to underwrite start-up costs for developers, build infrastructure, cut-taxes, relax regulations (etc etc) in order to woo investment. These de facto and de jure subsidies dwarf the subsidies that the truly poor receive. Indeed, without the state, capital couldn't function. This is a fact that today's "libertarians" seem congenitally unable to comprehend.
Of late, there are many who are infatuated with the "libertarian" notions of anti-business government
The official unemployment rate is now approximately 6%. However, these figures count as employed those that work only a few hours a week. Those who've been unemployed for more than 6 months are considered "structurally unemployed" and aren't counted in official stats. (In a similar fashion, offical inflation figures no longer count housing which is the single biggest, and fastest growing, expense for most working class people) In other words, real unemployment is probably about 10%, and much much higher in many areas in this country. In lieu of some sort of assistance, what the fuck are all these unemployed people supposed to do? Historically, the capitalist class has seen it as in it's interest to make some out-lays to lessen the likelihood of unrest. The US capitalist class, today, however, is so avaricious and myopic (and, i'll agree, beset by competitive pressures) that it can't see past the next quarter, let alone see to it that there is some minimal cushion for the many victims of the vaunted market.
Rightists who complain about welfare frequently invoke the idea "that the government doesn't owe you anything". But rarely do I hear complaints about mortgage subsidies (in the form of tax-breaks) that middle and upper-middle class people massively benefit from. Nor do I hear much in the way of complaints about massive subsidies that go to virtually every faction of big capital. Indeed, as capital becomes more and more mobile it is able to extract more and more from the state in return for investment. It is common practise for city governments to underwrite start-up costs for developers, build infrastructure, cut-taxes, relax regulations (etc etc) in order to woo investment. These de facto and de jure subsidies dwarf the subsidies that the truly poor receive. Indeed, without the state, capital couldn't function. This is a fact that today's "libertarians" seem congenitally unable to comprehend.
Of late, there are many who are infatuated with the "libertarian" notions of anti-business government
>In lieu of some sort of assistance, what the fuck are all these unemployed people supposed to do?
To provide assistance to the unemployed was not the original intent of welfare. I want to stick to the subject. I'll wait for mike to respond.
To provide assistance to the unemployed was not the original intent of welfare. I want to stick to the subject. I'll wait for mike to respond.
<I would agree their are men who abuse women. I would agree are men who mistreat women. It definitely takes two to tango. But a single woman who would willingly have sex with someone without determining whether or not that man is going to stick around and help provide and care for a child should one be conceived is taking a big risk. I know a marriage license is just a piece of paper, but it does at least hold the promise of commitment behind it.>
Do you have the formula for helping make such a determination? Given the large numbers of men who abandon women each year, you could make yourself rich by proffering it And why is the burden on women? Isn’t it the men who are the “big risk” here?
In fact, pregnancy rates among single women have been declining, mostly because of the increased empowerment of women through the feminist movement.
<It's not the role of the government to provide birth control to anyone, let's get that notion out of the way. Couldn't privately funded organizations provide women the information they need? or a doctor? Blaming religious people won't solve your problems. First of all, it's not true. I look around I see hospitals built by religious people, I don't see the ACLU Memorial Hospital. And they don't care of your religious affiliation or if your an atheist. You can still be admitted as a patient. So that tells me religious people are interested in the health of people. Religious people pay their taxes too. Why shouldn't they have a say in how their money is spent?>
The women, in the ghetto and poor rural areas, who lack access to birth control, frank and forthright information about sex, and abortion, are the ones most at risk of predatory male sexual assault.. Religious ideologies predominate in these areas, perpetuating ignorance.
It’s not the role of government to offer birth control information? Why not? The government is owned by the people for the benefit of society, and the dissemination of birth control and sex education in high schools is an extraordinarily efficient way to deliver these resources.. I say go for it.
As for the notion that religious people build hospitals and do all sorts of other great things for poor people, that’s great, but not relevant here. Separation of church and state is the law, and it is the only thing preventing a worldwide slide into barbarism. Everywhere you look, religious societies--Islamic, Jewish, Christian-perpetuate war and ignorance.
Religious people in the U.S. should be grateful liberals have safeguarded the separation of church and state, allowing them to practice their religion without having their church or mosque bombed by their fellow practitioners . They should express this gratitude by subordinating their prejudices about birth control, etc., for the greater good of society.
<I don't know if there's a study out there are not. With enough time and effort you can make a study read about any way you want it to anyway. I believe we could all agree that unplanned pregnancy and drug abuse certainly does not aid someone who is in poverty or on the verge of poverty.>
You don’t know if “there is a study out there” but you’re willing to base social policy on your own prejudices? I think that’s irresponsible. No, pregnancy and drug abuse aren’t helpful to someone in poverty, but they are symptoms, not causes
A helpful analogy is to hunger and poverty among the elderly before social security. Poor people suffering from alcoholism, etc, may have been more likely to fall into poverty; but the essential reason so many elderly people were poor was because of capitalist oppression. Once social security was put in place, poverty among the elderly in the U.S. was greatly ameliorated, one of the greatest human rights achievements in the history of the world.
<If you are indicating that the government should provide some type of safety net to ensure that no one falls into poverty, you're treading into an area that many of us see as an economic meltdown. >
Demonstrably false. Redistributionist economic polices, such as the U.S. income tax, and social security, often are great stimulants to economic growth because they give people the resources to go out and produce. The creation of the secondary mortgage market by the government after World War II, for example, effectively redistributed real estate profits into a “pool of wealth” used to generate housing opportunities for the middle class, a major spur to economic growth.
<My biggest problem with government run social programs is that they are economically unfeasible. I believe organizations that are privately funded would be much more effective and cost efficient.>
Again, false. There was lots of private charity before World War II but it took the massive government interventions of the New Deal to compress income, alleviate hunger, and lay the groundwork for the postwar economic boom. Private welfare agencies, including religious ones, DO administer government-funded social programs, and they do a good job of it. They just aren’t permitted to proselytize.
<I've seen too many reports and documentaries over the years where women have said they intentionally have more children in order to receive additional income. My guess is others here have too.>
If you could name one such objective study, that would be helpful. You can’t because there are none. Politicians know this, but they perpetuate such horrific prejudice because they know it will sell.>
<My job takes me all over the country and have yet to find where a woman can't obtain an abortion.>
Get back and your car and look again. In the Bible Belt, the Sun Belt and the rural north, a doctor literally risks his life by setting up an abortion clinic. Women are harassed as they try to enter. Parental notification and other such laws prevent vulnerable girls from exercising their constitutional right to kill an unwanted fetus.
<I find no bases upon which to call welfare reform "racist", so to discuss that would be futile.>
Again, unless you have an objective study to back up your statement, I must assume you don’t know what you’re talking about. Numerous such studies, from the Ford Foundation and social scientists at Yale, North Carolina, etc., have put forth the data demonstrating that welfare reform fuels a racist agenda. Or are all these institutions part of some liberal establishment? If so, cite your own study. I would presume that if you feel so strongly about this issue, you must have data to back up your conclusion
<my Dad owned a rental home and had rented out to a couple with about 4 or 5 kids. They collected welfare, and it was their sole income. They were able to work, but didn't. They told my Dad they made more money collecting welfare than they would be able to make should they actually work. There's where the problem lies.>
Wrong. Notice how your “conclusion” is based on anecdotal evidence from a representative of the rentier class, hardly an objective source.
The “problem” is that good paying jobs are scarce in many parts of the country. When there was a brief effervescence of such jobs in the in the late 90s, welfare rolls dropped, and NOT because of welfare reform (the changes occurred in all areas, including those where welfare policy was essentially untouched). Now that this bubble has burst, welfare rolls are rising again.
If you want to get people off welfare, or prevent those kicked off it from starving, you should advocate a single payer or Cuban-style health care system, a higher minimum wage, a public works jobs program to discipline the private sector into offering good jobs, the lifting of repressive laws against organizing private sector unions, and a .001% tax on stock exchange assets, along with increased income and inheritance taxes.
Anticipating your criticism that these reforms will drive the stock exchanges and the jobs overseas, I volunteer a show of force by the U.S military to prevent this from happening. To paraphrase William Greider, you could call it Homeland Security.
<BTW, if you're that Mike who does the stuff about conspiracy theories and outer space, you do some really funny stuff. Wasn't sure, there have been at least one other "Mike" on here recently.>
Yes (blush), I’m that mike.
I guess we must agree to disagree.
Re: men who abuse women
>Do you have the formula for helping make such a determination? Given the large numbers of men who abandon women each year, you could make yourself rich by proffering it.
I said that "a marriage license ... at least hold(s) the PROMISE of commitment behind it." I didn't say it was fool-proof.
>And why is the burden on women? Isn’t it the men who are the “big risk” here?
Exactly my point. Because the men are the "big risk" to shirk their responsibilities and run, the burden falls upon the woman to do all she can to find a mate who won't.
>The women, in the ghetto and poor rural areas, who lack access to birth control, frank and forthright information about sex, and abortion, are the ones most at risk of predatory male sexual assault.. Religious ideologies predominate in these areas, perpetuating ignorance.
Once again, blaming religion won't solve the problem. Religious people have the right to enter any community they wish and seek those who they believe might be receptive to what they teach. Your view of what should be told to any group regarding "birth control, frank and forthright information about sex, and abortion" is not the standard, nor do you have the exclusive right to set the standard. I am of the firm belief that if someone truly wants to obtain information regarding a subject which is of interest to them, they'll find a way.
>It’s not the role of government to offer birth control information? Why not? The government is owned by the people for the benefit of society, and the dissemination of birth control and sex education in high schools is an extraordinarily efficient way to deliver these resources.. I say go for it.
The government is reaching beyond the role of its original intent. It's my tax money, too. I say No.
>As for the notion that religious people build hospitals and do all sorts of other great things for poor people, that’s great, but not relevant here. Separation of church and state is the law, and it is the only thing preventing a worldwide slide into barbarism. Everywhere you look, religious societies--Islamic, Jewish, Christian-perpetuate war and ignorance.
Seperation of church and state means the state cannot sanction any faith as being the "state religion, i.e. Church of England. I will only discuss seperation of church and state upon that premise.
>They (Religious people)should express this gratitude by subordinating their prejudices about birth control, etc., for the greater good of society.
Religious people who are against abortion do so because they believe it is a sin against God. You're asking them to "subordinate" what they view as "God's Will" for what you view as the "greater good of society". I don't have any reason to believe any religious person would desire to substitute their allegaince to God and His commandments to that of man, and to ask them to do so would be foolish.
Once again, religious people pay their taxes too. They have every right to petition the government to inact laws based upon what they desire America to become. As long as their desires do not involve creating a law where all citizens must owe alligance to a particular faith, their petitons to the government does not violate the law regarding the seperation of church and state.
>...pregnancy and drug abuse aren’t helpful to someone in poverty, but they are symptoms, not causes
I disagree. And I believe you're willing to base social policy on your own prejudices.
Social Security will prove to be a failure. It already is.
>"capitalist oppression"
People like to blame their troubles on something. This seems to be the buzz-word on this site.
Re: (if you believe) the government should provide some type of safety net to ensure that no one falls into poverty, ... (some view this) as an economic meltdown.
>Demonstrably false.
I disagree.
Re: My biggest problem with government run social programs is that they are economically unfeasible. I believe organizations that are privately funded would be much more effective and cost efficient.
>Again, false.
I disagree.
I view the New Deal overall as a failure.
Re: I've seen too many reports and documentaries over the years where women have said they intentionally have more children in order to receive additional income. My guess is others here have too.
>...If you could name one such objective study, that would be helpful.
I don't keep a videotaped library of everything I've seen on TV or copies of everyhting I've read in journals. If you choose not to believe that I have seen and read what I claim, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Re: My job takes me all over the country and have yet to find where a woman can't obtain an abortion.
>Get back and your car and look again....
I disagree.
>Parental notification and other such laws prevent vulnerable girls from exercising their constitutional right to kill an unwanted fetus.
I did find the use of the word "kill" interesting.
Re: I find no bases upon which to call welfare reform "racist", so to discuss that would be futile.
>...I would presume that if you feel so strongly about this issue, you must have data to back up your conclusion.
I don't need as study to know welform reform is not racist for the same reason I don't need a study telling me that pouring gasoline on myself and lighting a match is dangerous and potentially fatal. When I said it's "futile", I meant the notion was so silly it didn't warrant discussion.
>If you want to get people off welfare, or prevent those kicked off it from starving, you should ...
Of a certainity, the solution doesn't lie in Wash. D.C. in a bigger role of the Federal Gov't. Wash. D.C. and its social programs and overreaching laws is the problem, not the solution.
I appreciate your answering me and your clarifying of your opinion. We disagree, but it's differences among citizens and the working through those differences to reach reasonable compromises that make this country great.
From one American to another, I wish you all the best.
Re: men who abuse women
>Do you have the formula for helping make such a determination? Given the large numbers of men who abandon women each year, you could make yourself rich by proffering it.
I said that "a marriage license ... at least hold(s) the PROMISE of commitment behind it." I didn't say it was fool-proof.
>And why is the burden on women? Isn’t it the men who are the “big risk” here?
Exactly my point. Because the men are the "big risk" to shirk their responsibilities and run, the burden falls upon the woman to do all she can to find a mate who won't.
>The women, in the ghetto and poor rural areas, who lack access to birth control, frank and forthright information about sex, and abortion, are the ones most at risk of predatory male sexual assault.. Religious ideologies predominate in these areas, perpetuating ignorance.
Once again, blaming religion won't solve the problem. Religious people have the right to enter any community they wish and seek those who they believe might be receptive to what they teach. Your view of what should be told to any group regarding "birth control, frank and forthright information about sex, and abortion" is not the standard, nor do you have the exclusive right to set the standard. I am of the firm belief that if someone truly wants to obtain information regarding a subject which is of interest to them, they'll find a way.
>It’s not the role of government to offer birth control information? Why not? The government is owned by the people for the benefit of society, and the dissemination of birth control and sex education in high schools is an extraordinarily efficient way to deliver these resources.. I say go for it.
The government is reaching beyond the role of its original intent. It's my tax money, too. I say No.
>As for the notion that religious people build hospitals and do all sorts of other great things for poor people, that’s great, but not relevant here. Separation of church and state is the law, and it is the only thing preventing a worldwide slide into barbarism. Everywhere you look, religious societies--Islamic, Jewish, Christian-perpetuate war and ignorance.
Seperation of church and state means the state cannot sanction any faith as being the "state religion, i.e. Church of England. I will only discuss seperation of church and state upon that premise.
>They (Religious people)should express this gratitude by subordinating their prejudices about birth control, etc., for the greater good of society.
Religious people who are against abortion do so because they believe it is a sin against God. You're asking them to "subordinate" what they view as "God's Will" for what you view as the "greater good of society". I don't have any reason to believe any religious person would desire to substitute their allegaince to God and His commandments to that of man, and to ask them to do so would be foolish.
Once again, religious people pay their taxes too. They have every right to petition the government to inact laws based upon what they desire America to become. As long as their desires do not involve creating a law where all citizens must owe alligance to a particular faith, their petitons to the government does not violate the law regarding the seperation of church and state.
>...pregnancy and drug abuse aren’t helpful to someone in poverty, but they are symptoms, not causes
I disagree. And I believe you're willing to base social policy on your own prejudices.
Social Security will prove to be a failure. It already is.
>"capitalist oppression"
People like to blame their troubles on something. This seems to be the buzz-word on this site.
Re: (if you believe) the government should provide some type of safety net to ensure that no one falls into poverty, ... (some view this) as an economic meltdown.
>Demonstrably false.
I disagree.
Re: My biggest problem with government run social programs is that they are economically unfeasible. I believe organizations that are privately funded would be much more effective and cost efficient.
>Again, false.
I disagree.
I view the New Deal overall as a failure.
Re: I've seen too many reports and documentaries over the years where women have said they intentionally have more children in order to receive additional income. My guess is others here have too.
>...If you could name one such objective study, that would be helpful.
I don't keep a videotaped library of everything I've seen on TV or copies of everyhting I've read in journals. If you choose not to believe that I have seen and read what I claim, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Re: My job takes me all over the country and have yet to find where a woman can't obtain an abortion.
>Get back and your car and look again....
I disagree.
>Parental notification and other such laws prevent vulnerable girls from exercising their constitutional right to kill an unwanted fetus.
I did find the use of the word "kill" interesting.
Re: I find no bases upon which to call welfare reform "racist", so to discuss that would be futile.
>...I would presume that if you feel so strongly about this issue, you must have data to back up your conclusion.
I don't need as study to know welform reform is not racist for the same reason I don't need a study telling me that pouring gasoline on myself and lighting a match is dangerous and potentially fatal. When I said it's "futile", I meant the notion was so silly it didn't warrant discussion.
>If you want to get people off welfare, or prevent those kicked off it from starving, you should ...
Of a certainity, the solution doesn't lie in Wash. D.C. in a bigger role of the Federal Gov't. Wash. D.C. and its social programs and overreaching laws is the problem, not the solution.
I appreciate your answering me and your clarifying of your opinion. We disagree, but it's differences among citizens and the working through those differences to reach reasonable compromises that make this country great.
From one American to another, I wish you all the best.
I haven't seen anyone told to or not to have an abortion or to believe a certain religious belief by someone holding a gun to their head anywhere here in the USA, so I'm not sure what "the armed might of the state" means.
There are many people whose political leanings are based upon their religious beliefs. They have every right to petition the government as anyone else based upon their convictions, regardless of how they came to those convictions. To ask them to seperate their political leanings from their religious beliefs is something that simply won't happen. As long as they don't make a law that in essace says "The Church of England is the religion of the State," they are perfectly within their rights.
There are many people whose political leanings are based upon their religious beliefs. They have every right to petition the government as anyone else based upon their convictions, regardless of how they came to those convictions. To ask them to seperate their political leanings from their religious beliefs is something that simply won't happen. As long as they don't make a law that in essace says "The Church of England is the religion of the State," they are perfectly within their rights.
>CPS will take your kids away. If you resist, you will be arrested at gun point. If you resist with sufficient vigor, you will be killed.
Show me the law addressing the procedure to be taken (Step 1: kids taken away, Step 2: arrest at gunpoint, Step 3: resist and be killed) or provide for me a case where this has taken place.
Show me the law addressing the procedure to be taken (Step 1: kids taken away, Step 2: arrest at gunpoint, Step 3: resist and be killed) or provide for me a case where this has taken place.
>>>>as far as I'm concerned, teaching creationism is teaching children to believe without question, to not think for themselves and to reject science and reason. That’s child abuse, and should be treated accordingly.
A series of questions: Just where would religion fit in anarchy? Would those who choose to practice their religion or those who taugh the Bible to their children as the Word of God be repremanded for child abuse? Could their conceivably be a "collective" of people who lived according to their religious beliefs, i.e. the Amish living in Lancaster, PA? Will religion be scorned? I have not seen religion addressed as it relates to anarchy.
A series of questions: Just where would religion fit in anarchy? Would those who choose to practice their religion or those who taugh the Bible to their children as the Word of God be repremanded for child abuse? Could their conceivably be a "collective" of people who lived according to their religious beliefs, i.e. the Amish living in Lancaster, PA? Will religion be scorned? I have not seen religion addressed as it relates to anarchy.
The Supreme Court rules on what does and does not breach the separation of Church and State. You're entitled to your opinion, but in matters of Constitutional law it matters very little.
They wrote here that 12 mln kids face homelessness. But http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html says there is about 1.35 mln kids homeless, and only 34% of them lives in shelter, others live in relatives' apartments, motels, etc.
Besides USA is so great country cause if you have job - you have your money just for yourself, not like in Europe where state forces you to provide free apartement for some alcoholic who is too lazy to earn money for his own kids.
And I wonder why that woman lost her job, i mean USA has 5.6% unemployment, so you have to try hard to become jobless. Maybe alcohol? Maybe drugs? I don't know. So maybe we should ask not "why her children are homeless" but "why she still has her parent rights?"
Maybe she's really victim of bad luck (yeah right!). But when you have children - you have to try twice harder, cause if not you - who should feed them?
european ugly capitalism lover.
Besides USA is so great country cause if you have job - you have your money just for yourself, not like in Europe where state forces you to provide free apartement for some alcoholic who is too lazy to earn money for his own kids.
And I wonder why that woman lost her job, i mean USA has 5.6% unemployment, so you have to try hard to become jobless. Maybe alcohol? Maybe drugs? I don't know. So maybe we should ask not "why her children are homeless" but "why she still has her parent rights?"
Maybe she's really victim of bad luck (yeah right!). But when you have children - you have to try twice harder, cause if not you - who should feed them?
european ugly capitalism lover.
How do people become jobless? Very simple. More workers than jobs. Why is this a surprise to you ugly fight winger? Doesn't the right need unemployment to drive down wages, intensify working conditions and to break unions. Even during the Depression of the 1930's the right was claiming that unemployment was involuntary. think about that. According to conservatives, millions of workers, spontanously, decided to stop working and become unemployed. There's nothing like conservative "logic" (talk about an oxymoron)
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network