Child Poverty

1. 75

   Valeantposted 11 months ago

   We had a discussion about child poverty rates recently, but it seems best to put it in its own thread.  Congress put money into the budget to help children during the summer months when school is not in session.  Over a dozen states with Republican governors have turned down the money.
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/repub … &ei=30
   
   The money is there, but they just don't want to help reduce the child poverty rates in the states.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Just from your link . . .
      
      You say the money is there, but your article appears to say an additional $1 billion of borrowed money is needed to fund it.
      
      Did you look into any details of why the states declined to sign up?
      
      Your wording indicates, to me, that you think their decisions are just cold-hearted political calculations.
      
      Just a thought, have any Democrat-run states declined the offer?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         I wondered if any Democrat-led states declined the offer, but have not seen any that declined the assistance yet.  I guess we should call funding the military borrowed money too from now on. The money has already been allocated as it was passed by Congress, although states will have to pay for half of the administrative expenses in running the programs in their states.  The government used to pay all the administrative expenses when this was a pilot program starting back in 2013, but now requires the states to pay half of those expenses.
         
         And yes, when child poverty rates have increased in the past few years, I find it cold-hearted not to take advantage of federal programs to assist.  Just adds to the perception that the pro-life stance only exists until birth, after that, they are on their own.

         replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Weighing in, Pride? Question: What happens if the appropriated money is not spent? Does it alleviate the national debt? Without knowing that, at this time, I favor the already passed legislation to be put into action.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      This is not the job of Government, it's the mission of churches & various organizations. It's naturally second nature for family, friends, neighbors, communities to step up, but as one who grew up in the church, for as long as I can remember, my church has provided. In fact, ovetstocked food pantries are common, people are so very generous in donating!
      We've supplied meals through summers and school breaks and whenever there is the biggest need. In fact, I don’t know of any churches that don't do the same!
      On top of that, local radio stations, restaurants, numerous businesses, are always stepping up, year round, seeing to it that no child goes hungry.
      Again, this is not the job of Government. Governors have enough to do in keeping their States safe. Together, they must all stay laser-focused on keeping this entire Nation safe!! Especially now, in these uncertain times, with this latest terror threat against  us.
      
      Such a horrible assumption for you to make, stating "they just don't want to help." You don't know where their heart is,
      where their donations go or their level of involvement in their church/community!

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

         So Well Said.....

         replyreport
2. 91

   wildernessposted 11 months ago

   The way to reduce poverty, child or not, is not to give them someone else's money, not even that from future generations.
   
   Liberals appear to have a real problem understanding that you cannot legislate poverty away by throwing money at it.  Especially money you don't have in the first place.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Which is odd, because the data says that by the end of the first six months, the child tax credit that Biden passed had reduced child poverty by 30%, sending it to a record-low of 5.2% by the end of 2021.  Seems like legislating it did have positive effects.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Correct, however, you did not touch on --   The way to reduce poverty, child or not, is not to give them someone else's money, not even that from future generations.
         
         Liberals appear to have a real problem understanding that you cannot legislate poverty away by throwing money at it.  Especially money you don't have in the first place.
         
         Do we want to put a bandaid on a problem that will ultimately fester into more devastating problems?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee, you are correct on this.  Also people must learn the art of delayed gratification.  Many people are poor in America because they only think of their present/immediate needs.  Before people have children, they should apply the FEP principle(my coinage).  The FEP principle is that people should be financially, emotionally, & psychologically prepared before they become parents.   Furthermore, they should practice family planning.
            
            I believe that in order to have children, one should be AT LEAST solidly middle class.  That way children will have a fighting chance in life.  Children in poverty don't have a chance to succeed in life.  People have to realize that parenthood is a privilege & gift.  Parenthood isn't a right.

            replyreport
         2. 75

            Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Maybe we shouldn't be giving the military 'other people's money' to legislate national security. 
            
            When there is poverty, that leads to a rise in crime, as we saw in 2020 during the pandemic when crime rates soared (up 28% from 2019).  We allow 'other people's money,' what normal Americans call the taxes they collect, to provide for a safer America against foreign influences, but have an issue when those monies go to lower poverty, and therefore, crime rates?  Some might want a safer America from external and internal threats.
            
            And as shown, those monies did have a very positive effect on child poverty rates.  So that bandaid seemed to staunch the bleeding and prevent infection.  In other words, that bandaid worked.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

               What? I will and must say your analogy makes no sense to me in any respect.  I feel giving a man a fish he will eat for one day -- teach him to fish he will eat for many. I hope to build a society where most thrive, care for their own BASIC needs, and are not dependent on others.
               
               We are so far off regarding what we see as common sense. I want prosperity through education and work.  We deprive many of our children of a decent education. Perhaps we need to put some money into better educating our children and pulling them out of poverty.

               replyreport
            2. 91

               wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

               And now?  Is it still helping, or do we need even more?
               
               The problem with our putting people on govt. charity is that it seldom ends.  Instead it fosters the growth of families that then have children...children that in their own turn go right living off of charity.  It is a vicious cycle that throwing money at will not help; instead it is a direct cause of growth of the welfare system.

               replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Well said.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I totally agree.  People have learn responsibility & accountability.  People must also be sexually responsible.  The mantra is that if one can't provide for their children, DON'T HAVE THEM.  If one is poor, one SHOULDN'T have children.  I have said & known this since I was 15 years old.  I KNEW this at 15, why don't GROWN people know this?!

      replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

   Thanks Sharlee, isn't this your experience too?
   Is this a foreign concept to some? The purpose/mission of the church via soup kitchens, food pantries,  outreach, etc.....
   Have we strayed so far from the purpose of Government to where Governors are chastised for not taking even more money from
   taxpayers...the same taxpayers, so eager to help others in their time of need!? Without being asked to do so - but because it is the right thing to do!
   I don't  know when things went so wrong and so backwards.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Ab,   Absolutely, and it's disheartening to witness the shift away from the core values and missions of both the church and other charitable organizations. The original purpose of institutions like the church, with its emphasis on compassion, outreach, and community support through soup kitchens and food pantries, is crucial for fostering a sense of community and caring for one another. No Government program could foster a sense of community, caring, or love.
      
      Similarly, the observation about governors facing criticism for not taking more money from taxpayers. This raises questions about the evolving priorities and mindsets of some in our society. It's commendable that we have so many who are eager to help others in need, demonstrating a willingness to contribute to the greater good without being explicitly asked. This sense of collective responsibility is something we should cherish and encourage, in my view.
      
      Reflecting on when and how things went awry is important, and is an important step toward realigning with the fundamental principles. We need to realize what did go wrong, and try not to continue making the same mistakes over, and over.  We can't afford to continue down this harmful path. 
      
      I have faith, and clarity, which I consider a blessing.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         This reminds me of the school lunch program.  I never understood that; we provide families with the means to eat (mostly food stamps), so why do we then need to add more so the kids eat at school?  Can children not take a lunch to school like I did?  Or are parents too lazy to make a lunch for them?  Or perhaps our food stamps end up buying beer and cigaretts?
         
         Then it got better, and we decided that we also had to provide lunches during the summer months (even though we had already given them sufficient to buy what they needed).  I was a local park one day around noon when I noticed it suddenly filling with children. Several vans. all with 2 or 3 adults and loaded with children.  The kids all lined up for a lunch that was being provided by the taxpayer.  Looking closer, all the vans (and there was not a single parent with one or two kids) were from nearby day care centers. 
         
         This is what our taxes bought; the day care centers killed two birds with one stone when they took the kids to the park to play...and be fed at taxpayer expense!  Day Care's were simply padding their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer; not one child/parent was visible!  Only groups from the Day Care centers...centers that were already being paid to feed the kids.
         
         Yeah, simply throwing money at problems is a great method...of making the rich richer.  Doesn't do much for those actually in need, though - your mention of fish and fishing is spot on, but we ignore that in favor of higher taxes and charity.  I suppose it buys votes.

         replyreport