(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why are you against the govt paying for it?

Do you think that the govt ought to spend money on children? Making sure they are nourished and educated?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The answer to the second question is no, which should provide plenty of information as to the answer to the first.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You really are a 'man-is-an-island' kinda guy,ain'tcha?

You really don't understand that it takes a village.

Free markets don't ensure freedom and monopoly is the only end point for a corporate entity; if they could, they'd love to charge us more than the "market price" and they CAN when they control everything. But getting back to it:

It's a damn good thing you aren't in charge or else more babies would die.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The nobility only lost the French Revolution because they didn't take a hard-enough line against those cake-eaters!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Let me try a better tact:

Do you think that the state suffers when children are uneducated and hungry?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. I do not necessarily think children are uneducated and hungry simply because the government doesn't provide it, however.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There are hungry children living in cars outside the entrance to the 880 freeway near my home.

They exist, and its feed the poor or die in the streets. Which do you prefer?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Read what I said again.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why not help the kids?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Glad to do so how I can, when I can. That doesn't justify the government doing it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This is why I described the conditions to you. The kids exist. They are suffering right now. No one is helping.

If I didn't have SSI when I was a child, I would have been homeless a lot more often than I was, so basically you are arguing for "die in the street".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, we have broad plans in place to help them.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

But you DON'T WANT the govt to step in and help them.

You admitted only "maybe" when I asked you if the state suffers when children are uneducated and hungry.

Why is that only a MAYBE? You use wedge/weasel words SO OFTEN it gets really annoying. I'm not sure you have a moral compass.

Do you think it is OK to steal food from someone else to feed the hungry? And please do not say maybe, or if you INSISTon saying something as wedge-like as "maybe" explain yourself. Why would it be OK, why wouldn't it be OK?

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

You can not win this argument with a Libertarian. Seriously. It's just not possible. I used to be a libertarian and argued with myself over it all the time. I lost and changed parties.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

Curiously, the broad plans we have to help people involve the government paying to make sure they get helped.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which tells us that the relationship between the two isn't as direct as one thought.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

kids exist. They are suffering right now. No one is helping

Most of poor children today in the US exist due to programs that support single mothers. Single mothers is the result of marriage crisis. Marriage crisis is the result of "Great Society" programs. More you help poor children -- more poor children you have as a result. You will never get rid of poverty transferring money to poor people.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

I... really wonder about that stat in the poster. I'm going to have to do some digging into the accuracy.

That said, by posting that image while discussing single mothers you are making the very common mistake of assuming that all impoverished single mothers are young and never-married. Divorce tends to launch mothers with children into poverty as well.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

Sure, if divorce is so common nowadays it also leaving mothers poor. The main reason of contemporary poverty is in family and personal behavior while many people think that "society should do something with poverty".

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The reason why the poster seems so questionable is because it assumes that there's no issue with stable employment that pays a reasonable salary.

Because, you know, if you finish high school and do get stable employment, you shouldn't face poverty. But getting a stable well-paying job doesn't just rely on "finish high school".

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

So where are all the men? (http://www.economist.com/node/1259838)

The Russian family has altered, with men shuffling out of the burden of caring for their children. The single mothers left to do the job now swell the growing ranks of the poor, and have little hope, except in remarriage, of ever doing better.

The data are patchy, but a recent survey by the Russian Academy of Sciences says that 28% of all children are born to unwed mothers. That's not much by some west European standards. But in Russia a figure of 24% was last seen just after the second world war. In later Soviet years the figure dwindled to 10-13%.

That was due more to the conservatism of society and harsh state policy than to family planning. Puritanism and poor knowledge of contraceptive methods pushed many young Soviet citizens into unhappy early marriages, which they then stuck to, in order to keep a flat or look respectable.

You were saying?

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

Russia is relatively poor country, and working mother can be poor. Even a family with working father and mother can be poor. America is the rich country where poverty has totally different nature.

http://womenintheworld.org/stories/entry/the-face-of-american-poverty-today

"Around 47 percent of kids living with a single mother are poor, four times the poverty rate for the children of married couples, according to the Department of Health and Human Services."

So for America the reason of being poor is not poverty of the country but crisis of marriage.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

My mom was one of those teen parents. After she died, I got SSI from the government until I was 18. It helped me survive so I could get my high school diploma. I have paid taxes for 27 years now. Without that help I would have been in jail.

More you help poor children -- more poor children you have as a result.

Die in the street kid.

Better for a poor women to have free access to birth control than for another unwanted baby. Better for the state to take care of the child then the streets.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Yeah, life was so much better when women were forced to stay with their abusive husbands and teen mothers and their offspring were ostracised and left to die in the street.

It's like you people think the 19th century didn't happen or something.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What about ORPHANS?