Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
And you can’t force anyone to practice birth control. I also find this line of thinking very insulting-that the solution to the problem is simply to make “less of them”. Awfully close to what the racist Margaret Sanger was in favor of.
The solution is reinforcing morality and responsibility in families. But that’s anathema these days.
Serious question — how do we address the issue of poverty and it’s very negative effects when we have people who don’t take financial responsibility into account and/or don’t have any financial literacy or responsibility? For example, the recent article in the Post about stimulus payments and whether they will actually help end poverty. The article focuses on a DC resident who (I think) says she rarely made more than $12,000 a year, struggled to pay her bills, relies on charities to help her. She is 32, has three kids (including 2 under 2).
I know plenty of people who make many, many multiples of what she earns who don’t think they have enough for three kids. It is likely impossible to get out of poverty and help your three kids have a better life and future on that kind of money. If we shouldn’t be saying “make less of them,” what’s a solution (and yes, I would prefer one that doesn’t rely on just continually taxing those who earn more for some form of wealth redistribution)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
And you can’t force anyone to practice birth control. I also find this line of thinking very insulting-that the solution to the problem is simply to make “less of them”. Awfully close to what the racist Margaret Sanger was in favor of.
The solution is reinforcing morality and responsibility in families. But that’s anathema these days.
Serious question — how do we address the issue of poverty and it’s very negative effects when we have people who don’t take financial responsibility into account and/or don’t have any financial literacy or responsibility? For example, the recent article in the Post about stimulus payments and whether they will actually help end poverty. The article focuses on a DC resident who (I think) says she rarely made more than $12,000 a year, struggled to pay her bills, relies on charities to help her. She is 32, has three kids (including 2 under 2).
I know plenty of people who make many, many multiples of what she earns who don’t think they have enough for three kids. It is likely impossible to get out of poverty and help your three kids have a better life and future on that kind of money. If we shouldn’t be saying “make less of them,” what’s a solution (and yes, I would prefer one that doesn’t rely on just continually taxing those who earn more for some form of wealth redistribution)?
There is no American citizen with children who lives on $12,000 a year.
Washington DC Package for a single mom with two kids (2018):
Total welfare benefits package: $43,099
Pre-tax wage equivalent: $50,820
Hourly wage equivalent: $24.43
State hourly minimum wage for 2017: $12.50
Washington, D.C., is no stranger to financial “best of” and “worst of” lists. With such a high cost of living, its welfare package for a single mom with two children is one of the top in the country. But when accounting for the difference between the welfare and minimum-wage payouts, those receiving public assistance can earn nearly $12 more than those working full-time, minimum-wage jobs.
Although many benefits are not unrestricted cash, they are providing services for which other people have to earn money, so they count as income. It is not impossible to receive subsidized child care to attend community college or receive GED training. Lots of nonprofits will provide this for women as well. There is an entire industry created for this very situation. Once she works, she will receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, plus new unrestricted child credits.
Anonymous wrote:maybe we need to invest more seriously in MS and HS vocational/mentoring paths.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
And you can’t force anyone to practice birth control. I also find this line of thinking very insulting-that the solution to the problem is simply to make “less of them”. Awfully close to what the racist Margaret Sanger was in favor of.
The solution is reinforcing morality and responsibility in families. But that’s anathema these days.
Serious question — how do we address the issue of poverty and it’s very negative effects when we have people who don’t take financial responsibility into account and/or don’t have any financial literacy or responsibility? For example, the recent article in the Post about stimulus payments and whether they will actually help end poverty. The article focuses on a DC resident who (I think) says she rarely made more than $12,000 a year, struggled to pay her bills, relies on charities to help her. She is 32, has three kids (including 2 under 2).
I know plenty of people who make many, many multiples of what she earns who don’t think they have enough for three kids. It is likely impossible to get out of poverty and help your three kids have a better life and future on that kind of money. If we shouldn’t be saying “make less of them,” what’s a solution (and yes, I would prefer one that doesn’t rely on just continually taxing those who earn more for some form of wealth redistribution)?
Anonymous wrote:Wow. This is when the death penalty needs to be put to use.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I agree 15 may be too late for some. And I also think that is tragic. I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know what we’re doing with DCYRA isn’t working for most. And I think it could be a huge benefit to the children and society if there was a tactful and humane way to identify these kids when they’re like 8 and provide them with a boarding school scenario. And I don’t mean a juvie precursor, I mean stable, nourishing boarding education.
One way to identify the children for this would be to approach the younger siblings that exist in the families where the 15 year olds are doing terrible shit like car jacking, robbing, etc.
And let me just clarify that plenty of children who are not AA would also benefit and be involved in this program.
The problem is this program will never exist because we are a capitalist society that is not built to address these issues.
Society providing a healthy and safe living situation, and education for all children who need it should be a no-brainer.
maybe having kids should not be incentivized by public benefits, that would be a great start coupled with free and easily accessible birth control and abortions
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
And you can’t force anyone to practice birth control. I also find this line of thinking very insulting-that the solution to the problem is simply to make “less of them”. Awfully close to what the racist Margaret Sanger was in favor of.
The solution is reinforcing morality and responsibility in families. But that’s anathema these days.
Serious question — how do we address the issue of poverty and it’s very negative effects when we have people who don’t take financial responsibility into account and/or don’t have any financial literacy or responsibility? For example, the recent article in the Post about stimulus payments and whether they will actually help end poverty. The article focuses on a DC resident who (I think) says she rarely made more than $12,000 a year, struggled to pay her bills, relies on charities to help her. She is 32, has three kids (including 2 under 2).
I know plenty of people who make many, many multiples of what she earns who don’t think they have enough for three kids. It is likely impossible to get out of poverty and help your three kids have a better life and future on that kind of money. If we shouldn’t be saying “make less of them,” what’s a solution (and yes, I would prefer one that doesn’t rely on just continually taxing those who earn more for some form of wealth redistribution)?
Anonymous wrote:I agree 15 may be too late for some. And I also think that is tragic. I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know what we’re doing with DCYRA isn’t working for most. And I think it could be a huge benefit to the children and society if there was a tactful and humane way to identify these kids when they’re like 8 and provide them with a boarding school scenario. And I don’t mean a juvie precursor, I mean stable, nourishing boarding education.
One way to identify the children for this would be to approach the younger siblings that exist in the families where the 15 year olds are doing terrible shit like car jacking, robbing, etc.
And let me just clarify that plenty of children who are not AA would also benefit and be involved in this program.
The problem is this program will never exist because we are a capitalist society that is not built to address these issues.
Society providing a healthy and safe living situation, and education for all children who need it should be a no-brainer.
Anonymous wrote:Seeing how the Go Fund Me for this gentleman is about to surpass $1 million, mostly is small donations, the Mayor may want to revisit her public statements on this horrific and sadly now common crime.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Birth control must be free and actively offered to families in crisis levels of poverty. How different things would be.
Uhhh... you don't know much about birth control, do you? It is free for poor people.
And you can’t force anyone to practice birth control. I also find this line of thinking very insulting-that the solution to the problem is simply to make “less of them”. Awfully close to what the racist Margaret Sanger was in favor of.
The solution is reinforcing morality and responsibility in families. But that’s anathema these days.