Poverty in America

[NorthSideSox72]

Assuming this situation is true I'd have no problem taking the children away from the parents. Why couldn't the state? You're telling me that a family of 12 living off welfare, living in such dire circumstances as you set out, is providing the minimal requirements of a home under the statutory guidelines? I'd also put the parents on a short ass leash to better their situation or they'd lose their federal help. Sorry man, I just don't buy the fact that people get in situations they can't get out of. Borrow money like the rest of us. Take out educational loans. Work a job or two and go to school part time. Or here's a better thought, after your 6th kid, close your f'n legs (which makes me wonder if they're so poor how exactly did they afford to have 10 kids? they're not exactly cheap, especially if you don't have insurance...)! Seriously though, there is PLENTY of aid available to help people in the short-term. I never said that I didn't want to help at all, but social services shouldn't be a lifelong crutch.

 

Also this hypothetical family is extremely rare. Most low-income people are single, some with kids. Most have criminal records. Most have drug problems. So should we just give them a pass for the rest of their life because they have a tough time? I'd prefer to kick them out on the street unless they show that they're actively working towards bettering their lives (or even the lives of others through volunteering).

Most low income people have criminal records and drug problems? I'd like to see a source on that, because I think that's a huge stretch.

[Jenksismyhero]

Most low income people have criminal records and drug problems? I'd like to see a source on that, because I think that's a huge stretch.

 

Let me look for the study our prof mentioned in class.

[EvilMonkey]

Now let's pause here for a second...your advice here is to make people accountable for their poor decisions. What exactly are you suggesting when you say we should make them accountable? So we have in the example we've been running with a family with 10 kids, they've clearly made poor decisions, they're living in subsidized housing while both parents work and still in pretty bad shape. What exactly is considered making this family accountable? Taking away their public housing, and tossing their family out on the streets? They've put themselves into a position where they simply can not get through the day without help. They can not find better jobs because they have no education or training and probably have health care issues as well, the state can't just seize all their children, and tossing a family of 12 out on the street puts them in even more hopeless of a situation than they're in now? How exactly can they be made accountable? What would you advise taking away from them if they don't meet whatever standard of improvement you set?

I'm not sure you can make the current crop of adults accountable, but you damn well need to make sure that their kids understand that they too don't get a free house if they have 10 or more babies. At some point the generational line living in public housing has to stop. You are supposed to grow up and out of public housing, not grow up and move in next door to momma.

[Texsox]

Assuming this situation is true I'd have no problem taking the children away from the parents. Why couldn't the state? You're telling me that a family of 12 living off welfare, living in such dire circumstances as you set out, is providing the minimal requirements of a home under the statutory guidelines? I'd also put the parents on a short ass leash to better their situation or they'd lose their federal help. Sorry man, I just don't buy the fact that people get in situations they can't get out of. Borrow money like the rest of us. Take out educational loans. Work a job or two and go to school part time. Or here's a better thought, after your 6th kid, close your f'n legs (which makes me wonder if they're so poor how exactly did they afford to have 10 kids? they're not exactly cheap, especially if you don't have insurance...)! Seriously though, there is PLENTY of aid available to help people in the short-term. I never said that I didn't want to help at all, but social services shouldn't be a lifelong crutch.

 

Also this hypothetical family is extremely rare. Most low-income people are single, some with kids. Most have criminal records. Most have drug problems. So should we just give them a pass for the rest of their life because they have a tough time? I'd prefer to kick them out on the street unless they show that they're actively working towards bettering their lives (or even the lives of others through volunteering).

 

Just to be certain, you favor taking kids from parents and placing them in foster care because their parents are now on Public Aid? Parents with their children are only for the rich folks, that isn't for poor people.

 

Will you be hiring enough case workers to track all these kids, or just forget about them once they are placed? If the parents get off aid, can they have their children back? If it takes years?

 

Are you also in favor of somehow artificially restricting the birth rates? Because the conservative, religious arm of the GOP, gets a little feisty about that. It may be tough to convince the GOP on a plan that rips apart families and gives incentives for abortions.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just to be certain, you favor taking kids from parents and placing them in foster care because their parents are now on Public Aid? Parents with their children are only for the rich folks, that isn't for poor people.

 

Will you be hiring enough case workers to track all these kids, or just forget about them once they are placed? If the parents get off aid, can they have their children back? If it takes years?

 

Are you also in favor of somehow artificially restricting the birth rates? Because the conservative, religious arm of the GOP, gets a little feisty about that. It may be tough to convince the GOP on a plan that rips apart families and gives incentives for abortions.

 

On the assumption that we increase funding for those places, abso-freakin-lutely. It's on the edge of child abuse to force a kid to grow up in an environment with 9 other siblings living of pennies a day. At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility. Yes to the case workers. I'm in favor of opening up huge schools/dorms instead of the foster system we have. Might as well give these kids an education while waiting for them to find a home, if they ever do. And as far as giving them back to their parents, this sort of thing happens all the time when parents get into drugs or go to jail. Some governmental protection agency steps in, takes the kid away and then the parents later show the courts that they're responsible enough to have them back. This would be done in the same manner.

 

I don't think the GOP would have problems with this. Why would they? It's in the best interest of the child to get out of that situation.

[Balta1701]

I don't think the GOP would have problems with this. Why would they? It's in the best interest of the child to get out of that situation.

$$$$$.

 

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to leave the kids with their parents on Public housing than to actually go through all of the legal matters to take kids away from parents, set up systems to take care of them, provide for their education, health, and future, etc.

 

What we do now is we throw money at these sorts of problems, but we're really stingy about it, we get angry when we throw the money at it, we fail to make the long-term commitments, the money winds up being sucked up by the avoidable, short-term emergencies, and then people start saying "Oh, what we're doing now clearly isn't working, it's time to cut the funding". That is the cycle that we get thrown into here...and it will take money to break it. It costs a lot of money to start up a firm plan with a solid foundation and potential for success. The long term benefits may be huge, but the government in a huge number of cases such as dealing with those in poverty is unwilling to invest the large assets in the short-term to develop and implement a plan that may not show benefits until 20, 30 years down the road when that generation grows up.

 

Edit: and this is not a GOP only problem, so don't take it that way.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

On the assumption that we increase funding for those places, abso-freakin-lutely. It's on the edge of child abuse to force a kid to grow up in an environment with 9 other siblings living of pennies a day. At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility. Yes to the case workers. I'm in favor of opening up huge schools/dorms instead of the foster system we have. Might as well give these kids an education while waiting for them to find a home, if they ever do. And as far as giving them back to their parents, this sort of thing happens all the time when parents get into drugs or go to jail. Some governmental protection agency steps in, takes the kid away and then the parents later show the courts that they're responsible enough to have them back. This would be done in the same manner.

 

I don't think the GOP would have problems with this. Why would they? It's in the best interest of the child to get out of that situation.

 

Taking children from their families bacause their parents are poor is not a core family value. Family values is about strengthening the family unit, not about you've had too many chiildren, the state will take them now.

 

"At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility."

 

And having the kids grow up in a "huge schools/dorms" accomplishes this by? And how much different would this be than a prison?

 

Then we have all these kids getting settled with foster parents, perhaps attending school regularly, bonding with their new families, and along comes mom and dad wanting them back because they have better jobs.

 

I see the kids being used to punish the adults in your scenario, and don't like that aspect. I agree we need to make some changes, but removing children from their parents and placing them in an already over burdened foster care situation would not be a step forward.

[Jenksismyhero]

Taking children from their families bacause their parents are poor is not a core family value. Family values is about strengthening the family unit, not about you've had too many chiildren, the state will take them now.

 

"At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility."

 

And having the kids grow up in a "huge schools/dorms" accomplishes this by? And how much different would this be than a prison?

 

Then we have all these kids getting settled with foster parents, perhaps attending school regularly, bonding with their new families, and along comes mom and dad wanting them back because they have better jobs.

 

I see the kids being used to punish the adults in your scenario, and don't like that aspect. I agree we need to make some changes, but removing children from their parents and placing them in an already over burdened foster care situation would not be a step forward.

 

How is this situation any different from mothers who leave childern in abusive homes becaues they're too afraid to leave or parents who abuse drugs with children in the home? Society has decided that we have the right to take children out of those situations and place them in a 'better' one (obviously we can argue whether a foster agency/adoption center is indeed better).

 

The huge schools/dorms I envision are nothing like prison. They're more like boarding schools. Obviously it would take funding (and a helluva PR campaign) but I think anything is better than watching this poor kids grow up in the hell-hole that is Cabrini. I'm 24 years old and I wanted to pick up some of those kids and run away from that place as fast as possible. It's absolutely terrible that people live like that. Seven and eight year old kids talking to crack heads (saw it). Families with 6-7 young children (1 year old-15 years old) in a 750 sq foot cement jail cell. The parents have difficulties, no doubt, but not so serious that they can't overcome and give their children a good, decent life if they had made the right choices (and i'm not talking about being perfect...they've repeatedly made poor choices because they don't have to worry about being on the street, they have a place given to them).

 

I just don't see how it would be a step backwards. You'd be giving these children a chance at a life. We all can agree they practically have zero chance to get out of the projects and do something. They're totally left behind. I guess we should respect the rights of stupid parents to pop out babies even though it creates even more of a burden on an already burdened family, lowering the odds of any of the children getting out. Family values indeed!

[Balta1701]

How is this situation any different from mothers who leave childern in abusive homes becaues they're too afraid to leave or parents who abuse drugs with children in the home? Society has decided that we have the right to take children out of those situations and place them in a 'better' one (obviously we can argue whether a foster agency/adoption center is indeed better).

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on the merits of your proposal just yet, but here's why this situation is different. 2 reasons. In general, it is a very, very, very bad thing to pull a child away from its parents, especially at a young age. It can damage the child for life. Even in a bad situation, such as a family in deep poverty, it can and often is more damaging to the child to pull them away from their parents, even if placed into an ideal home, than it is to leave the child in the care of the parents.

 

And on top of that, not to insult foster families in any way, but it's not like the child would be moved into the care of Bill Gates here, where they'd have all of the attention, schooling, and benefits that one could ever dream of; the foster system does a good job where it can, but in many cases, the improvement may only be marginal. In the case of a family where one parent is gone and the other is abusive and on drugs, yes, the improvement is worth splitting the child from the parents, but outside of that scenario, you're taking, forceably, children away from the people to whom those children are the most deeply attached and installing them in either a foster system or the boarding-house system you suggest, where the conditions are not going to be those of luxury either. That is a lot of damage you risk doing to a child, even a child whos parents are not in good shape.

[Texsox]

I agree with everything Balta mentions and add a couple things. You are talking about inner city high rise living, there are way more poor families living in the far rural areas. Appalachia still suffers from some of the worst poverty in our country, but they are cut off and rural and we don't think of them. Would we be taking these kids as well?

 

Institutionalizing kids just consolidates the problem and hides it. I agree that the present system is poor. I think we need to find ways to strengthen the family unit, not break it up. The family unit has been a cornerstone of civilization for ever. It is proven to work and is the cheapest option. I think decentralizing and offering more mixed housing makes the most sense. We need to focus on this generation of kids and find some way to break this cycle. I wouldn't invest much effort in trying to fix the second generation public aid adults. We've already screwed their lives with the present system.

[kapkomet]

I agree with everything Balta mentions and add a couple things. You are talking about inner city high rise living, there are way more poor families living in the far rural areas. Appalachia still suffers from some of the worst poverty in our country, but they are cut off and rural and we don't think of them. Would we be taking these kids as well?

 

Institutionalizing kids just consolidates the problem and hides it. I agree that the present system is poor. I think we need to find ways to strengthen the family unit, not break it up. The family unit has been a cornerstone of civilization for ever. It is proven to work and is the cheapest option. I think decentralizing and offering more mixed housing makes the most sense. We need to focus on this generation of kids and find some way to break this cycle. I wouldn't invest much effort in trying to fix the second generation public aid adults. We've already screwed their lives with the present system.

I know Appalachia very well. It's where my dad is from. Guess what? He did what he could to escape it.

 

Oh by the way, I would make the argument that Indiana suffers from some of those same economic hardships, at least where my parents are. Unemployment runs rampant, jobs are scarce, etc. I left because I saw it coming 15 years ago. That's what an education did for me.

 

So, how do we educate folks to further themselves to make a difference?

[NorthSideSox72]

I know Appalachia very well. It's where my dad is from. Guess what? He did what he could to escape it.

 

Oh by the way, I would make the argument that Indiana suffers from some of those same economic hardships, at least where my parents are. Unemployment runs rampant, jobs are scarce, etc. I left because I saw it coming 15 years ago. That's what an education did for me.

 

So, how do we educate folks to further themselves to make a difference?

I asked a teacher that the other day (Chicago public high school teacher of many years). Better teachers would help. How do we get them? The first answer wasn't higher pay, although that might help. The answer was getting rid of some of the large bureaucratic overhead in the large public school systems, fix the infrastructure (buildings are apparently a mess), maybe even outsource some of the facilities management to private firms. Also allow teachers more room to breathe, and teach as they see fit. Then, with some money saved from the overhead, raise the pay a bit, and raise standards of hiring at the same time.

 

But honestly, that's just the schools. The problems related to education are much greater outside the school buildings, IMO, and this teacher agreed. Poverty, violence (in person and on TV, video games), poor work ethic from parents, lack of personal responsibility, drugs, etc.

[Texsox]

I know Appalachia very well. It's where my dad is from. Guess what? He did what he could to escape it.

 

Oh by the way, I would make the argument that Indiana suffers from some of those same economic hardships, at least where my parents are. Unemployment runs rampant, jobs are scarce, etc. I left because I saw it coming 15 years ago. That's what an education did for me.

 

So, how do we educate folks to further themselves to make a difference?

 

And he didn't need to be moved into a group home.

 

One of the universal thoughts in goal setting, and "getting out or getting off" should be a goal in these cases, is the goal must be realistic. Borrowing from one source I see repeated over and over again, the goal should be:

 

S

=

S

pecific

M = Mea

s

urable

A = Attainable

R = Reali

s

tic

T = Timely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

There's a hell of a lot of people who choose to stay in those circumstances, and then also choose to complain about it.

 

That's the saddest part of all.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's a hell of a lot of people who choose to stay in those circumstances, and then also choose to complain about it.

 

That's the saddest part of all.

I agree that happens way too often. But here is a question then... given that guarantees them a life of struggle and mediocrity... why do people do it? Are they just lazy? Or are they so convinced they'll never get out that they don't try?

 

I don't have a specific answer in mind. Just curious about people's theories.

[kapkomet]

I agree that happens way too often. But here is a question then... given that guarantees them a life of struggle and mediocrity... why do people do it? Are they just lazy? Or are they so convinced they'll never get out that they don't try?

 

I don't have a specific answer in mind. Just curious about people's theories.

Depends on the person and the personality.

 

Some people just accept their circumstances. Others won't let it get them.

[southsider2k5]

I agree that happens way too often. But here is a question then... given that guarantees them a life of struggle and mediocrity... why do people do it? Are they just lazy? Or are they so convinced they'll never get out that they don't try?

 

I don't have a specific answer in mind. Just curious about people's theories.

 

After learning what I have with a wife as a teacher in a school which has a 70% poverty rate, and my run for school board, the answer is that there is a solid mix of both. Usually it is the convincing that they will never get anywhere that leads them to be lazy.

 

What is amazing is how young it starts in kids, and the circumstances that they come from. I could tell you some stories about the kids and their "family" lives that would just blow your mind. For many of these kids, school is a low priority, and for others it is a place to get their only meal, and stay warm. For others it is a place where mommy's boyfriend won't kick you ass again.

 

I think we identify the problem too late in life to fix it. Kids need hope young, because by the time they are lazy adults it is too late.