6 Baltimore public schools where not a single student tested "proficient"

[Anonymous]

How would this system work? That is, who would get paid, for what, and how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Actually it would be more like a podiatrist posting about a patient who gets super cheap pedicures at a shady nail salon. Patient always gets a foot fungus, yet keeps going back there month after month.

This is something in that patient's control. She can choose to quit going there or she can continue to go there (kinda stupid) and continue to get foot infections.

Getting pregnant is similarly a choice to some extent. And it it a choice that some ooor women continue to make over and over despite the fact that they cannot support the kids they already have.

They see it as simple as that they will get additional money (via WIC, via SNAP, whatever) with an additional kid. Not completely thinking it through and thinking about the added emotional and financial expense.

I have no doubt that if we made it more of an immediate financial benefit to not have kids, that would help immensely.

How?

Have you not been reading the posts?

Currently, the system is set up so that unmarried, lower income moms see that they will get more money/benefits each month if they have another kid.

If we offered a financial reward for NOT having another kid, it makes sense that they would choose that route. Which would be beneficial for all involved - the overextended mom, and the kids she already has.

It can be totally voluntary, so the PP won't be offended that poor people can't have an unlimited amount of kids.

So now we pay for the abortions and even extra money as a perk for having abortions? Just no

If you are on government assistance you and your teen girls have IUD's. Otherwise no assistance.

Abortions are not the only way to avoid having a baby.

The girls know damn well what they are doing and know that there are ways to avoid pregnancy. IUDs, BCPs, freakin condoms would be fantastic from an sTD point of view.

They choose NOT to do that.

Fine if you don't want the government to pay for abortions, but there are other measures we can put into place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would this system work? That is, who would get paid, for what, and how?

Right now, the system gives low income mom's more money when they have another kid. The amount of money a mom gets varies based on Location and income.

Here's an example:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month towards SNAP or whatever program
Kid 2 - mom now gets $200/month
Kid 3 - mom now gets $300/month

Additionally, Mom gets fully covered vision, dental and health care for each kid (paid by taxpayers)
Kids get two Free and Reduced meals each day at school. (Also paid by taxpayers)

How about this:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month
For every month Mom does NOT get pregnant, she gets $125/month extra in benefits to use toward the kid she already has. It would benefit her own kid as well as herself. Benefits taxpayers because even though they are paying the Mom, we're still paying less in Medicaid cost, etc.

If she chooses to get pregnant anyway, she goes back to the original benefits and loses the bonus.

We need to provide these mom's an incentive NOT to get pregnant again and again and again. Right now, we do the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would this system work? That is, who would get paid, for what, and how?

Right now, the system gives low income mom's more money when they have another kid. The amount of money a mom gets varies based on Location and income.

Here's an example:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month towards SNAP or whatever program
Kid 2 - mom now gets $200/month
Kid 3 - mom now gets $300/month

Additionally, Mom gets fully covered vision, dental and health care for each kid (paid by taxpayers)
Kids get two Free and Reduced meals each day at school. (Also paid by taxpayers)

How about this:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month
For every month Mom does NOT get pregnant, she gets $125/month extra in benefits to use toward the kid she already has. It would benefit her own kid as well as herself. Benefits taxpayers because even though they are paying the Mom, we're still paying less in Medicaid cost, etc.

If she chooses to get pregnant anyway, she goes back to the original benefits and loses the bonus.

We need to provide these mom's an incentive NOT to get pregnant again and again and again. Right now, we do the opposite.

In other words, every household that receives SNAP benefits and has at least 1 household member under 18 gets an extra $125 (or whatever) per month unless/until another member under 18 is added to the household while the household is receiving SNAP benefits?

Can you foresee potential problems with that program? I can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would this system work? That is, who would get paid, for what, and how?

Right now, the system gives low income mom's more money when they have another kid. The amount of money a mom gets varies based on Location and income.

Here's an example:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month towards SNAP or whatever program
Kid 2 - mom now gets $200/month
Kid 3 - mom now gets $300/month

Additionally, Mom gets fully covered vision, dental and health care for each kid (paid by taxpayers)
Kids get two Free and Reduced meals each day at school. (Also paid by taxpayers)

How about this:

Kid 1 - mom gets $100/month
For every month Mom does NOT get pregnant, she gets $125/month extra in benefits to use toward the kid she already has. It would benefit her own kid as well as herself. Benefits taxpayers because even though they are paying the Mom, we're still paying less in Medicaid cost, etc.

If she chooses to get pregnant anyway, she goes back to the original benefits and loses the bonus.

We need to provide these mom's an incentive NOT to get pregnant again and again and again. Right now, we do the opposite.

In other words, every household that receives SNAP benefits and has at least 1 household member under 18 gets an extra $125 (or whatever) per month unless/until another member under 18 is added to the household while the household is receiving SNAP benefits?

Can you foresee potential problems with that program? I can.

Guess what?? There are TONS of problems with the system the way it is now. Do we just leave it alone? Honestly, it's the kids who suffer. Ask anyone who works with this population of kids. The current system is not working for them and the fact that poor moms are being rewarded financially for having more and more kids that they cannot take care of is not the way to continue.

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are problems with the system the way it is now. That doesn't justify adding a new program with problems.

Also, it's not a fact that poor women are rewarded financially for having more children -- unless you also consider yourself rewarded financially for having another child when you get an additional child tax credit and dependent deduction on your annual tax return?

[Anonymous]

Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are problems with the system the way it is now. That doesn't justify adding a new program with problems.

Also, it's not a fact that poor women are rewarded financially for having more children -- unless you also consider yourself rewarded financially for having another child when you get an additional child tax credit and dependent deduction on your annual tax return?

Umm, yes, I actually do consider that a reward. It's the government giving us back some money because of our kid. Of course it's a reward.

The government makes these kinds of decisions daily with the Tex code. When it wants to subsidize something, it offers tax breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

OMG, are you an idiot? Bet you voted for Trump.

That was just an example. If the woman already had four kids, she gets the money that is due to her. You can apply the same system. Give her even more money if she doesn't have any more kids. How is that a bad thing??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

Well, in actuality, your lack of reading comprehension and name calling shows that you are the one who is stupid.

I'm the PP who posted that as an example. Obviously moms get their allotted money for any kids they already have. In your example, the mom would get $400/month for the 4 kids she already has (o whatever amount depending on where she lives).

She even gets extra money if she doesn't have additional kids WHILE on public assistance. After she is off public assistance (which is meant to be temporary), she is welcome to have as many more kids as she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

Well, in actuality, your lack of reading comprehension and name calling shows that you are the one who is stupid.

I'm the PP who posted that as an example. Obviously moms get their allotted money for any kids they already have. In your example, the mom would get $400/month for the 4 kids she already has (o whatever amount depending on where she lives).

She even gets extra money if she doesn't have additional kids WHILE on public assistance. After she is off public assistance (which is meant to be temporary), she is welcome to have as many more kids as she wants.

What happens when mom is a dad instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

Well, in actuality, your lack of reading comprehension and name calling shows that you are the one who is stupid.

I'm the PP who posted that as an example. Obviously moms get their allotted money for any kids they already have. In your example, the mom would get $400/month for the 4 kids she already has (o whatever amount depending on where she lives).

She even gets extra money if she doesn't have additional kids WHILE on public assistance. After she is off public assistance (which is meant to be temporary), she is welcome to have as many more kids as she wants.

What happens when mom is a dad instead?

It gets more complicated in this case. What if the dad fathers a child that is not in his household? Does he still get the bonus? What if the other household is also a SNAP household? What if the other household is not a SNAP household? Can a family separate and become two SNAP households in order to get the bonus twice?

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are a lot of what-ifs here. What if the SNAP household is a married couple with children? What if the SNAP household consists of a grandparent with a grandchild and then loses its bonus when the grandparent takes in another grandchild? What if the household goes on SNAP when one of its members is already pregnant? And so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your solution to pay people to NOT have children is stupid.

What happens is a woman isn't on WIC, SNAP, or any other program, but has, say, 4, kids and a husband. Unexpectedly, the husband dies, and the woman is now left to care for 4 children. Under the current plan, she gets help for those 4 children. Under your plan, she is deemed poor and with too many children and gets nothing.

Go away, Troll!

Well, in actuality, your lack of reading comprehension and name calling shows that you are the one who is stupid.

I'm the PP who posted that as an example. Obviously moms get their allotted money for any kids they already have. In your example, the mom would get $400/month for the 4 kids she already has (o whatever amount depending on where she lives).

She even gets extra money if she doesn't have additional kids WHILE on public assistance. After she is off public assistance (which is meant to be temporary), she is welcome to have as many more kids as she wants.

What happens when mom is a dad instead?

It gets more complicated in this case. What if the dad fathers a child that is not in his household? Does he still get the bonus? What if the other household is also a SNAP household? What if the other household is not a SNAP household? Can a family separate and become two SNAP households in order to get the bonus twice?

How would this be any different than how the system works now? What do they do for kids who are in shared custody?

Do both parents get SNAP benefits if the kid lives with his dad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I lived there, I'd be smart enough not to make it worse by having kids.

You don't say.

Even poor people want to have children. Even upper-middle-class highly-educated people have unplanned pregnancies.

The difference is that UMC families are making sure their kids get to school every day, on time. And the difference is that society spends a sh$t ton of money trying to support these women who continue to have kids who they cannot emotionally and financially support.

Well, mostly. But you're shifting the goalposts here.

Upper middle-class families are making sure their kids get to school on time every day because they have the economic resources to do so. Poor families do not have these resources -- by definition. That doesn't mean that upper-middle-class parents are good parents and poor parents are bad parents. It means that upper-middle-class parents have more economic resources than poor parents.

So one possible policy approach would be to make sure that poor parents have the economic resources necessary for making sure their kids get to school in time every day.

Why have people romanticized the poor so much? I grew up with teen parents, food from the food bank, sleeping on a mattress in the front room, bathing in the kitchen sink, parents then divorced, etc. Often the poor choices made by these parents in their own lives translate into bad parenting. More resources will not change that.

I wish society would develop the will to "break the cycle". We are not doing kids any favors by leaving them in these situations.