Yet another fast food worker strike

[brandonb]

How are these "little excuses"? They are glaring flaws in your plan. Considering that your position is based in large part on the idea that people should consider the consequences of their actions is it too much to ask for you to consider the consequences of what you're proposing?

Like I said, complaining about the system is easy. Finding something better is hard. People don't realize what they are saying until they sit down and think it through.

Here let me answer your question:

Again if I'm dictator. I'd make the children come with while their parents pick up trash on the side of the road and make them watch. So they know what their life will end up like if they make poor choices like their parents.

 

[WackyDan]

I said unrealistic.

To expect everyone to use it every time? Most definitely.

Even the guy who first started all this a page back confessed that he often had sex without contraception... yet that was okay because he wasn't living in poverty.

You need to realise that poor people get randy, horny, and broody just like you do.

CONTEXT asshole.

I said I have and lots of others certainly have unprotected sex. That is a CHOICE. That is a far different choice to make when you are living in poverty or living with means. I'm pretty sure every sexually active adult here has made that choice at one point.

We can all rationalize why in the heat of the moment one chooses not to leverage birth control... But the point made has been and remains that poor people have more kids. They aren't poor because of having kids ( sure it helps keep them poor), but they are having more kids while already poor. Conversely, someone growing up outside of poverty tends to wait longer before having children... some wait too long.

So genius... What is the problem there?

- Is it low IQ?
- Is it simply that they are poor?
- Is it lack of education?
- Is it their environment that they live in?
- Is it lack of goals/responsibility for themselves and others?

What exactly drives poor people to NOT make responsible decisions in regard to reproduction more so than those NOT in poverty. You've been obtuse ever since you replied to me. You cited what I already posted upstream about how the poor have more kids. So that shoots down your everyone has sex excuse. Man up, and tell me why we can't expect or even suggest that those in poverty be more responsible. Explain why many states gladly will pay to tie the tubes of welfare mothers. There is indeed a reason, and it has to due with the welfare of the child but also the welfare of the state.

 

[fskimospy]

Here let me answer your question:

Again if I'm dictator. I'd make the children come with while their parents pick up trash on the side of the road and make them watch. So they know what their life will end up like if they make poor choices like their parents.

You're going to have children under the age of 5 following their parents around for hours on end as they do manual labor?

How are the parents going to be able to watch the kids and work at the same time?

How will you deal with children under three?

How are you going to look out for the safety of the children?

How are you going to deal with the fact that small children lack the endurance to be out there all day like adults?

What lessons do you expect a three-five year old to learn?

Those are just the massive, unsolveable problems that came to mind in about ten seconds.

 

[Veliko]

I haven't got the answer as to why poor people have more kids and neither does anyone else - all we have are theories.

When you ask why those living in poverty aren't more responsible, you're essentially asking "why are people in poverty acting like people in poverty?"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Do you realize how rare it is for middle class people to adopt a child out of poverty? What I meant was that all things being equal taking a child away from their parents leads to worse outcomes.

If I'm not mistaken, age of the child is what most people are concerned with when adopting.

This wouldn't kill two birds with one stone, this would create a humanitarian catastrophe. You show me a fixed and thriving foster care system and then I'll entertain the idea of putting thousands and thousands more people in it.

Great, I'm fine with that -- let's fix the foster system first and then revisit. And to be VERY clear, I am not advocating that the US government forcibly remove children from poor homes and place them up for adoption. I'm for incentivizing it and more permanent birth control.

It's very easy to complain about the system as it is. Not so easy to find a better one, is it?

You guys are the ones saying the system has to be changed, not me.

Something is very wrong when people who have no education, no marketable skills, and no real future are allowed to keep pumping out children while the taxpayer supports them. I hope the number of people doing that are an exceptionally small percentage of the population. You might say that it is such a small percentage that it isn't a problem worth tackling but when we're talking about potentially thousands of children consigned to a life of poverty and I think that makes it worth fixing.

 

[WackyDan]

I do agree that your post is dripping with smugness and arrogance. Was this what you intended?

Lots and lots of poor people do use birth control. Due to poor education and other social circumstances they use it at somewhat lower rates than wealthier people. Plenty of wealthy people have pregnancies due to a failure to use birth control, as well. I mean what did you think all those "happy surprises" are?

People are people. Instead of wagging our finger at those we declare to be inferior how about you tell me a solution?

At this point you are just being outright ignorant.

"Wealthy" people have babies accidentally... True. They can afford the accident or failure of birth control. That isn't even a debate. That point has been made, I don't know what the argument is you guys keep trying to make there.

"Inferior"?? There you go...subtle jab at calling us racist and shouting us down because obviously we view those in poverty inferior. All stripes live in poverty. If you can't see that they have bad decision making skills, perhaps they are there because of a low IQ.. Perhaps they are there because they were raised in poverty to begin with and just haven't found their way out...which they won't if they have kids while in poverty.

Inferior? Certainly some are. You can't fix stupid, and in some cases you can't fix lazy. I've know a lot of families that live at or just below poverty levels and while some do their best to raise their kids right and actually get them a chance at a higher standard of living, I've still seen the poor choices that some of them and their offspring can make relative to someone making a living.

 

[brandonb]

You're going to have children under the age of 5 following their parents around for hours on end as they do manual labor?

How are the parents going to be able to watch the kids and work at the same time?

How will you deal with children under three?

How are you going to look out for the safety of the children?

How are you going to deal with the fact that small children lack the endurance to be out there all day like adults?

What lessons do you expect a three-five year old to learn?

Those are just the massive, unsolveable problems that came to mind in about ten seconds.

I'm working right now, so I don't have all day to do the back and forth Q and A about how I would structure society if I'm a dictator. I can easily come up with answers. Which will then cause you to send me another list of 10 questions in which I would have the answer. Maybe after a few days we could come up with a nice solid plan. And in the end, you'd just come out and say "That's unrealistic" after you ran out of questions because that's how certain people with your mindset debate. So I'm going to save myself the time.

But I think any conservative would be ok with opening a government daycare center if it made everybody on assistance go out and pick up trash. So lets do it...

 

[fskimospy]

If I'm not mistaken, age of the child is what most people are concerned with when adopting.

Sadly, no. Age certainly plays a part as a large proportion of adopted children are under a year old, but race is also a big issue. Simply put, white people don't adopt black kids. (for many reasons, some of which come from black people themselves)

Great, I'm fine with that -- let's fix the foster system first and then revisit. And to be VERY clear, I am not advocating that the US government forcibly remove children from poor homes and place them up for adoption. I'm for incentivizing it and more permanent birth control.

If we can come up with a functional foster care/adoption system I'd definitely be down to revisit. Hell, I want a functional foster care system just on its own merits. I genuinely don't know if it's possible though. The fundamental dynamics of foster care are pretty horrible.

Something is very wrong when people who have no education, no marketable skills, and no real future are allowed to keep pumping out children while the taxpayer supports them. I hope the number of people doing that are an exceptionally small percentage of the population. You might say that it is such a small percentage that it isn't a problem worth tackling but when we're talking about potentially thousands of children consigned to a life of poverty and I think that makes it worth fixing.

I think this is less of a problem than you think. According to the stats I found in a quick search almost 80% of people on welfare had two or fewer kids. If you're talking about the percentage of the population that sits around on TANF all day it's pretty exceedingly small.

 

[WackyDan]

If so, can you explain why this is holding the parents responsible for their actions? It sounds an awful lot like you're holding the children responsible for their parents actions.

We have a winner.

Yes, this is the disconnect with liberals. Oh the children... the almighty children. It isn't their fault they came into this world at all.

I get the argument. Shit, I even somewhat agree with it. The problem is that in caring for the children because it wasn't their fault, we are creating generations of offspring well versed in poverty and living off the state. It isn't doing them any favors. Remove the support and make like harder like it should be and those kids would learn a valuable lesson from their impoverished mother's choices. Perhaps then they would choose not to force that same hardship on any offspring of their own.

 

[Knowing]

I was unaware of this as well. However, I was merely answering this question:

Birth control is free or practically free. Children cost money. Democrats said that the reason people had unplanned pregnancies was that they were unable to make the correct decision because of finances. That's out of the equation now so what's the next solution? Is there an estimate on how many more times they're going to be wrong at great financial and social cost?

 

[nehalem256]

Do you realize how rare it is for middle class people to adopt a child out of poverty? What I meant was that all things being equal taking a child away from their parents leads to worse outcomes.

Maybe because people tend to want to adopt infants?

Most people aren't particularly interested in adopting an unrelated child that has been screwed up by their meth head parents for 10 years.

Though I am pretty sure that taking a kid away from meth head parents isn't leading to worse outcomes.

And when these retirement-age "punished" people cannot afford food or housing or medical care, we'll just let them die on the streets, right? I mean, absolutely no public funds will be used once these people reach retirement age?

Ah, so the whole the children will suffer because of their parents choices was just a redherring.

You don't even want adults to suffer because of their repeated poor choices.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sadly, no. Age certainly plays a part as a large proportion of adopted children are under a year old, but race is also a big issue. Simply put, white people don't adopt black kids. (for many reasons, some of which come from black people themselves)

Oops, my apologies -- you're right about race being a huge factor. It did slip my mind.

 

[nehalem256]

"Inferior"?? There you go...subtle jab at calling us racist and shouting us down because obviously we view those in poverty inferior. All stripes live in poverty. If you can't see that they have bad decision making skills, perhaps they are there because of a low IQ.. Perhaps they are there because they were raised in poverty to begin with and just haven't found their way out...which they won't if they have kids while in poverty.

Inferior? Certainly some are. You can't fix stupid, and in some cases you can't fix lazy. I've know a lot of families that live at or just below poverty levels and while some do their best to raise their kids right and actually get them a chance at a higher standard of living, I've still seen the poor choices that some of them and their offspring can make relative to someone making a living.

Actually its the left that clearly believes those that are poor are inferior.

They repeatedly argue that the poor are incapable of making better life choices and so society should just bail them out.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm working right now, so I don't have all day to do the back and forth Q and A about how I would structure society if I'm a dictator. I can easily come up with answers. Which will then cause you to send me another list of 10 questions in which I would have the answer. Maybe after a few days we could come up with a nice solid plan. And in the end, you'd just come out and say "That's unrealistic" after you ran out of questions because that's how certain people with your mindset debate. So I'm going to save myself the time.

Your plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's really clear you never took any time to think out the consequences of your ideas. Now you're just trying to ignore these problems so you don't have to change your mind. Whatever works for you, I guess.

But I think any conservative would be ok with opening a government daycare center if it made everybody on assistance go out and pick up trash. So lets do it...

I'm pretty sure lots and lots of conservatives wouldn't be ok with that at all.

 

[WackyDan]

There are tens of thousands of people looking for kids to adopt. Put them up for adoption. I'd wager their lives would turn out much, much better.

Sitting here and wringing our hands and wrists while maintaining the status quo doesn't help these kids either.

The problem is the adoption process is long, expensive as fuck and each state has it's own rules/red tape. I know first hand. The wife and I were looking at adoption back in 2009/2010. If you aren't religious or convert, you aren't going to get the financial benefit of adopting through a church group. If you are attempting to adopt across state lines be prepared for a shit storm of red tape. Hint - don't ever fucking try to adopt a child from Virginia if you live out of state. Expense? We were looking at minimum $25k-$35k through an agency. We ended up close to a private out of state adoption involving a lawyer in our state and their state that would have been close to $15k. Out of country adoption? Still looking at $25k+. Plus the long wait for all the above.

Not to mention the common practice today of birth mothers wanting an "open adoption" where they get some sort of updates on their child and perhaps even visitation. Sorry, but many adoptive parents do not want the meth head mom, prison inmate mom, etc having anything to do with the child once they adopt in order to give the child a better home.

I went off on a tangent there. Adoption won't solve much of anything. Sure, I fully believe we need to make it easier and more cost effective for people to domestically adopt. I see all the time, where people have a slew of kids in foster care and the news article on them is one of physical, sexual, starvation etc on the part of the foster parents. It seems to be easier to become a foster parent than to adopt. There is something wrong there.

We just need to make sure that the message is NOT have all the babies you want, you can just adopt them away.

 

[fskimospy]

Birth control is free or practically free. Children cost money. Democrats said that the reason people had unplanned pregnancies was that they were unable to make the correct decision because of finances. That's out of the equation now so what's the next solution? Is there an estimate on how many more times they're going to be wrong at great financial and social cost?

Uhmm, providing no-cost birth control leads to much lower rates of unplanned pregnancies. So it turns out that they were... well... entirely correct.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000282/

Any estimate on how many more times you're planning on being wrong about this? lol.

 

[WackyDan]

Even a quick look into adoption would show you how absurd that "solution" is. First, outcomes for adopted children are usually worse than children of equivalent backgrounds who are raised by their natural parents.

Second, and more importantly, there are already tons of kids of this socioeconomic background waiting to be adopted. Since there aren't enough adoptive parents out there that means foster care. Anyone familiar with the outcomes for children placed in foster care would realize that your solution would create a societal nightmare. Did you know that two out of three kids in foster care will be homeless, dead, or in jail within one year of leaving the system?

How is your solution anything other than a catastrophe?

Hey we agree on something.

My sister fostered three sets of brothers and sisters over the course of almost ten years. The parents had sexually abused, emotionally abused, physically abused them or all the above. She had to allow visitation with the parents... Sometimes at their prison or at a neutral location with a witness social worker.

She refuses to foster parent anymore. Her goal was to ultimately adopt a foster child. Unfortunately, the parent(s) of the foster children were always able to petition the court to allow them possession of their children again. These same parents that abused them. These same parents who were somehow rehabilitated.... When in reality, all these parents wanted was the additional benefits they got from the state for being the guardian of their children again.

My sister had her heart broken like this three times. She got to see the children come out of their shells and flourish under her and her husband's care only to see the state take them away and place them back in the same damaging, hostile environment. She spent a shit ton more money than she ever received from the state for being a foster parent. Her and her husband make a comfortable living and were more than able to financially support those kids as well give them the chance at a college education. Hence why she is no longer a foster parent. The state is doing these kids a huge injustice in many cases and ensuring the kids end up in poverty, jail, etc as you so pointed out.

 

[WackyDan]

And you think that most children in the foster care system come from married middle class families?:hmm:

Zing. This seems to be the point a few of us have been making... only to be ignored.

 

[WackyDan]

It's not a job, no; it's slavery.

So this relationship I have with my present employer is slavery? They offer me healthcare and compensation so that my family has food and a roof over our head.

I've been duped! I've been a slave almost my entire life!

 

[WackyDan]

But the right is opposed to providing public-funding (these are poor people, remember?) for birth control. And the right is totally opposed to abortions. So it sounds like you've got a totally consistent argument there, dumbass.

The "right" isn't all bible beating fanatics either... dumbass.

 

[Knowing]

Uhmm, providing no-cost birth control leads to much lower rates of unplanned pregnancies. So it turns out that they were... well... entirely correct.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000282/

Any estimate on how many more times you're planning on being wrong about this? lol.

You have a data point. Congrats. It doesn't make you right or me wrong, but let's look in to your data to see if anything interesting shakes out.

Further,
"Participants were recruited" Kinda makes it sound like they were already intending not to have (more) unintentional pregnancies which you know, sorta defeats the purpose.

So what the study actually says is, if you recruit high risk people from abortion clinics and educate them (because 35% of them have high school education or less) then you'll get them to consume free birth control that for what ever reason they were not consuming before. Are there any studies that pertain to the post PPACA era?

 

[WackyDan]

So it's the woman's fault if the man buggers off?

She probably isn't a good judge of character. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but it seems that many will try to hitch their wagon to just about anyone that comes along.

I won't even bother googling for you the amount of absent fathers who view it as some sort of trophy to knock her up and leave...or the ones that have made headlines for fathering a bazillion children with several women... Women that knew the guy's M.O. to begin with.

 

[WackyDan]

When you ask why those living in poverty aren't more responsible, you're essentially asking "why are people in poverty acting like people in poverty?"

How about " Why aren't they acting like they ARE in poverty?"

I get it.. They just haven't accepted that they are.

 

[fskimospy]

You have a data point. Congrats. It doesn't make you right or me wrong, but let's look in to your data to see if anything interesting shakes out.

It's interesting to me that you were convinced that others were wrong 'at great cost' without even so much as a data point.

Further,
"Participants were recruited" Kinda makes it sound like they were already intending not to have (more) unintentional pregnancies which you know, sorta defeats the purpose.

If they were already intending that, recruitment would be unnecessary.

So what the study actually says is, if you recruit high risk people from abortion clinics and educate them (because 35% of them have high school education or less) then you'll get them to consume free birth control that for what ever reason they were not consuming before.

I'm glad to see you agree with me. Hopefully that means the number of times you'll be wrong about this topic in the future will be fewer due to this.

Are there any studies that pertain to the post PPACA era?

The no-cost birth control mandate for the ACA went fully into effect almost exactly nine months ago.

http://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=26927

Presumably you can see the problem with doing studies on births and pregnancy in that window.

 

[nehalem256]

I haven't got the answer as to why poor people have more kids and neither does anyone else - all we have are theories.

When you ask why those living in poverty aren't more responsible, you're essentially asking "why are people in poverty acting like people in poverty?"

So you are saying that the reason people are in poverty is because they are irresponsible?:hmm:

In short its their own fault they are in poverty.

Sounds to me that the only way to eliminate poverty then is to curtail the freedom of those in poverty. Which of course is pretty much exactly the opposite of what liberals want.