2016 Democratic Thread

[illinilaw08]

Honestly through the exposure I have gotten to differing amounts of early education, the biggest thing that needs to be done is to convince parents stuck in the poverty cycle that the best way for their kids to break out of it starts from Day 1, and not Age 5. I run into so many people who think because they didn't do anything with their lives, that their kids won't either, so their kids never get exposed to things like reading until a much later age than they should. That failure follows them as they trail their contemporaries all of the way through school, and never full recover as a whole. Sure some individuals get saved and recover, but as a group, no.

 

This is definitely spot on. Part of this, however, is that the difficulties of getting by on a day-to-day basis are much more difficult for those in the poverty cycle.

 

Couple of easy examples from my career: When I was a prosecutor, and I handled misdemeanor courts, the people on the lower end of the income spectrum were much more likely to bring their kids to court because they didn't have reliable childcare. They were more likely to miss a court date because they didn't have reliable transportation. They were more likely to end up coming back to court over and over because they failed to make the payments required on their speeding ticket or what not.

 

When I was doing debtor bankruptcy work, it was the same thing. The people at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, and with kids, have a harder time getting by. If they are working minimum wage, they have to deal with crappy scheduling that they have no control over. It's more likely they don't have reliable transportation, so they end up missing work, or their commute is significantly longer. If something throws a wrench into the schedule, they have to scramble for childcare because that's a thing that is absurdly expensive.

 

If you want to make a dent in the poverty cycle, there need to be resources available so that the kid of a single parent who works 12 hours a day doesn't end up with their kid behind the 8-ball. It's crappy that the choice in the poverty cycle is frequently working or spending time reading to their kids.

[lostfan]

This is definitely spot on. Part of this, however, is that the difficulties of getting by on a day-to-day basis are much more difficult for those in the poverty cycle.

 

Couple of easy examples from my career: When I was a prosecutor, and I handled misdemeanor courts, the people on the lower end of the income spectrum were much more likely to bring their kids to court because they didn't have reliable childcare. They were more likely to miss a court date because they didn't have reliable transportation. They were more likely to end up coming back to court over and over because they failed to make the payments required on their speeding ticket or what not.

 

When I was doing debtor bankruptcy work, it was the same thing. The people at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, and with kids, have a harder time getting by. If they are working minimum wage, they have to deal with crappy scheduling that they have no control over. It's more likely they don't have reliable transportation, so they end up missing work, or their commute is significantly longer. If something throws a wrench into the schedule, they have to scramble for childcare because that's a thing that is absurdly expensive.

 

If you want to make a dent in the poverty cycle, there need to be resources available so that the kid of a single parent who works 12 hours a day doesn't end up with their kid behind the 8-ball. It's crappy that the choice in the poverty cycle is frequently working or spending time reading to their kids.

Bernie Sanders said something like "being poor is expensive" and this is part of what he meant.

[StrangeSox]

Bernie Sanders said something like "being poor is expensive" and this is part of what he meant.

 

John Scalzi wrote a pretty good essay over a decade ago now on "being poor" and it's 10-year follow-up

 

Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs.

 

Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV.

 

Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth a damn.

 

Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away.

 

Being poor is knowing your kid goes to friends’ houses but never has friends over to yours.

 

Being poor is going to the restroom before you get in the school lunch line so your friends will be ahead of you and won’t hear you say “I get free lunch” when you get to the cashier.

 

Being poor is living next to the freeway.

 

Being poor is coming back to the car with your children in the back seat, clutching that box of Raisin Bran you just bought and trying to think of a way to make the kids understand that the box has to last.

 

Being poor is wondering if your well-off sibling is lying when he says he doesn’t mind when you ask for help.

 

Being poor is off-brand toys.

 

Being poor is a heater in only one room of the house.

 

Being poor is knowing you can’t leave $5 on the coffee table when your friends are around.

 

Being poor is hoping your kids don’t have a growth spurt.

 

Being poor is stealing meat from the store, frying it up before your mom gets home and then telling her she doesn’t have make dinner tonight because you’re not hungry anyway.

 

Being poor is Goodwill underwear.

 

Being poor is not enough space for everyone who lives with you.

 

Being poor is feeling the glued soles tear off your supermarket shoes when you run around the playground.

 

Being poor is your kid’s school being the one with the 15-year-old textbooks and no air conditioning.

 

Being poor is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal.

 

Being poor is relying on people who don’t give a damn about you.

 

Being poor is an overnight shift under florescent lights.

 

Being poor is finding the letter your mom wrote to your dad, begging him for the child support.

 

Being poor is a bathtub you have to empty into the toilet.

 

Being poor is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger’s trash.

 

Being poor is making lunch for your kid when a cockroach skitters over the bread, and you looking over to see if your kid saw.

 

Being poor is believing a GED actually makes a goddamned difference.

 

Being poor is people angry at you just for walking around in the mall.

 

Being poor is not taking the job because you can’t find someone you trust to watch your kids.

 

Being poor is the police busting into the apartment right next to yours.

 

Being poor is not talking to that girl because she’ll probably just laugh at your clothes.

 

Being poor is hoping you’ll be invited for dinner.

 

Being poor is a sidewalk with lots of brown glass on it.

 

Being poor is people thinking they know something about you by the way you talk.

 

Being poor is needing that 35-cent raise.

 

Being poor is your kid’s teacher assuming you don’t have any books in your home.

 

Being poor is six dollars short on the utility bill and no way to close the gap.

 

Being poor is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor.

 

Being poor is knowing you work as hard as anyone, anywhere.

 

Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually stupid.

 

Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually lazy.

 

Being poor is a six-hour wait in an emergency room with a sick child asleep on your lap.

 

Being poor is never buying anything someone else hasn’t bought first.

 

Being poor is picking the 10 cent ramen instead of the 12 cent ramen because that’s two extra packages for every dollar.

 

Being poor is having to live with choices you didn’t know you made when you were 14 years old.

 

Being poor is getting tired of people wanting you to be grateful.

 

Being poor is knowing you’re being judged.

 

Being poor is a box of crayons and a $1 coloring book from a community center Santa.

 

Being poor is checking the coin return slot of every soda machine you go by.

 

Being poor is deciding that it’s all right to base a relationship on shelter.

 

Being poor is knowing you really shouldn’t spend that buck on a Lotto ticket.

 

Being poor is hoping the register lady will spot you the dime.

 

Being poor is feeling helpless when your child makes the same mistakes you did, and won’t listen to you beg them against doing so.

 

Being poor is a cough that doesn’t go away.

 

Being poor is making sure you don’t spill on the couch, just in case you have to give it back before the lease is up.

 

Being poor is a $200 paycheck advance from a company that takes $250 when the paycheck comes in.

 

Being poor is four years of night classes for an Associates of Art degree.

 

Being poor is a lumpy futon bed.

 

Being poor is knowing where the shelter is.

 

Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so.

 

Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.

 

Being poor is seeing how few options you have.

 

Being poor is running in place.

 

Being poor is people wondering why you didn’t leave.

 

highlighted the ones most relevant to the current topics itt.

Edited October 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

This is definitely spot on. Part of this, however, is that the difficulties of getting by on a day-to-day basis are much more difficult for those in the poverty cycle.

 

Couple of easy examples from my career: When I was a prosecutor, and I handled misdemeanor courts, the people on the lower end of the income spectrum were much more likely to bring their kids to court because they didn't have reliable childcare. They were more likely to miss a court date because they didn't have reliable transportation. They were more likely to end up coming back to court over and over because they failed to make the payments required on their speeding ticket or what not.

 

When I was doing debtor bankruptcy work, it was the same thing. The people at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, and with kids, have a harder time getting by. If they are working minimum wage, they have to deal with crappy scheduling that they have no control over. It's more likely they don't have reliable transportation, so they end up missing work, or their commute is significantly longer. If something throws a wrench into the schedule, they have to scramble for childcare because that's a thing that is absurdly expensive.

 

If you want to make a dent in the poverty cycle, there need to be resources available so that the kid of a single parent who works 12 hours a day doesn't end up with their kid behind the 8-ball. It's crappy that the choice in the poverty cycle is frequently working or spending time reading to their kids.

 

Sure. But the truest indicator is the push the kids get from the people around them. I live in a town with about a 50% poverty rate in the schools. My daughter goes to school with kids who are quite literally homeless. Her best friend has a dad who was never around, and mom who lost custody because she is a drug addict and part time criminal to pay for it. An Aunt who is herself working 3 jobs is raising this kid. Despite the situation the kid is close to a straight A student. It is all because the Aunt forced the child to do early education activities from day one of taking over her parenting. For other kids in the situation, school is nothing but a day care and lunch counter. Their performance reflects that as well. I mean government can try to help all it wants, but there is an absolutely vital period very early on that if development doesn't take place, the kid is close to doomed statistically speaking.

[BigSqwert]

Sure. But the truest indicator is the push the kids get from the people around them. I live in a town with about a 50% poverty rate in the schools. My daughter goes to school with kids who are quite literally homeless. Her best friend has a dad who was never around, and mom who lost custody because she is a drug addict and part time criminal to pay for it. An Aunt who is herself working 3 jobs is raising this kid. Despite the situation the kid is close to a straight A student. It is all because the Aunt forced the child to do early education activities from day one of taking over her parenting. For other kids in the situation, school is nothing but a day care and lunch counter. Their performance reflects that as well. I mean government can try to help all it wants, but there is an absolutely vital period very early on that if development doesn't take place, the kid is close to doomed statistically speaking.

 

The "pulling up your bootstraps" method doesn't work for everyone. When in poverty, often the parents get severely depressed and get other mental health issues.

[southsider2k5]

The "pulling up your bootstraps" method doesn't work for everyone. When in poverty, often the parents get severely depressed and get other mental health issues.

 

The government method doesn't work for everyone either. In fact it is WAY less likely to work than it being done inside of a household.

[illinilaw08]

Sure. But the truest indicator is the push the kids get from the people around them. I live in a town with about a 50% poverty rate in the schools. My daughter goes to school with kids who are quite literally homeless. Her best friend has a dad who was never around, and mom who lost custody because she is a drug addict and part time criminal to pay for it. An Aunt who is herself working 3 jobs is raising this kid. Despite the situation the kid is close to a straight A student. It is all because the Aunt forced the child to do early education activities from day one of taking over her parenting. For other kids in the situation, school is nothing but a day care and lunch counter. Their performance reflects that as well. I mean government can try to help all it wants, but there is an absolutely vital period very early on that if development doesn't take place, the kid is close to doomed statistically speaking.

 

Sure. And we don't disagree on the point that parents have a huge impact on how kids develop, and that if that window gets missed, the kid is much less likely to succeed.

 

The point I'm making is that it's much, much more difficult for the parent in the poverty cycle to provide that support. If we're trying to make an efficient use of federal (or local) tax dollars, targeting them toward those kids seems like a smart thing to do.

[southsider2k5]

Sure. And we don't disagree on the point that parents have a huge impact on how kids develop, and that if that window gets missed, the kid is much less likely to succeed.

 

The point I'm making is that it's much, much more difficult for the parent in the poverty cycle to provide that support. If we're trying to make an efficient use of federal (or local) tax dollars, targeting them toward those kids seems like a smart thing to do.

 

That is just it. I don't think there is a particularly effective usage to be had here. Even in the offering of public education, if a student isn't willing to participate in it, it is a waste. In this case, if a parent who already has the attitude that education is worthless is being depended on to provide for that child, even if it means getting them to some programing, it isn't going to be done with education in mind.

 

In order be effective, you would have to have the government raise that child.

[Balta1701]

That is just it. I don't think there is a particularly effective usage to be had here. Even in the offering of public education, if a student isn't willing to participate in it, it is a waste. In this case, if a parent who already has the attitude that education is worthless is being depended on to provide for that child, even if it means getting them to some programing, it isn't going to be done with education in mind.

 

In order be effective, you would have to have the government raise that child.

The problem with that statement is that anything that removes a child from their parents is generally a traumatic event. I think the available studies on this are pretty clear - unless the home the kid is in is a true threat to their life, if it's possible to keep the kid in their original home, there is a solid benefit to keeping them their in terms of the kid's grades, likelihood of winding up in jail, drug use, etc.

[southsider2k5]

The problem with that statement is that anything that removes a child from their parents is generally a traumatic event. I think the available studies on this are pretty clear - unless the home the kid is in is a true threat to their life, if it's possible to keep the kid in their original home, there is a solid benefit to keeping them their in terms of the kid's grades, likelihood of winding up in jail, drug use, etc.

 

That wasn't a directive. That was a hidden warning of the fact that the government has done an incredible awful job of raising people's children.

[StrangeSox]

But there are undoubtedly plenty of cases of good parents struggling in poverty who try to do the best by their kids and would be helped massively by an extra $1k.

[illinilaw08]

That is just it. I don't think there is a particularly effective usage to be had here. Even in the offering of public education, if a student isn't willing to participate in it, it is a waste. In this case, if a parent who already has the attitude that education is worthless is being depended on to provide for that child, even if it means getting them to some programing, it isn't going to be done with education in mind.

 

I agree with you on one aspect - if the parents just flat out don't care about education, in the vast majority of cases, no amount of intervention will fix things.

 

But that's not every case. There are plenty of documented examples of parents amongst the working poor who know that education is the path out. But they don't have the time or resources to provide that attention to their kid. Subsidized pre-k services would absolutely make a difference in those cases.

 

To me, it's an efficient allocation of tax dollars to means test for, and subsidize (either through a voucher system or federally run programs) some standard level of day care services at the pre-k level. For one thing, it might lead to greater participation in the workforce (the amount of money day cares charge is absurd). For another, it might lead to greater success for kids coming from poor households in school.

 

The poverty cycle doesn't get fixed by saying "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" or by throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done...

 

Edit: I wasn't aware there was actually a federal fund that provides those services. The more you know... http://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/fact-sheet-occ

Edited October 11, 2016 by illinilaw08

[StrangeSox]

The "pulling up your bootstraps" method doesn't work for everyone. When in poverty, often the parents get severely depressed and get other mental health issues.

 

[pedant]

Language changes so everyone today knows what's meant when someone uses the phrase, but originally it that phrase was meant as an absurdity--it's literally impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

[/pedant]

Edited October 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

[pedant]

Language changes so everyone today knows what's meant when someone uses the phrase, but originally it that phrase was meant as an absurdity--it's literally impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

[/pedant]

 

I'm sure there's a youtube video or two out there with at least one successful, cirque-du-soleil attempt.

[bmags]

I do believe that early child education, pre-K, is hugely critical for development.

 

That said, I don't necessarily think the federal government should be the ones to address that. This is one I think the states and localities need to get addressed. It is something that benefits the entire community, and much like public education in general, should be funded by local and state taxes. If you want to keep the existing providers, then use a voucher system for pre-K levels (and only pre-K levels, because that's where the private structure is already the ONLY structure for the most part). But it is important, and I do think it should be an added tax. Then remove the federal credit entirely, and if people want to pay above what the public structure provides in services or voucher amounts, then don't get a tax break on it.

 

I will probably manage to piss of R's and D's at the same time with that one, haha.

 

But then you have Alabama and Mississippi and all of the states that need it most being unable to. Something like matching grants would be helpful there.

 

US could play with privatizing and using places like Montessori to scale but I doubt it would be worth it.

[bmags]

Ok let's be real on this child tax credit thing. If you're making $3k a year, you can't afford yourself, let alone a child. You're on welfare for everything you need in life including shelter, food and healthcare. $1,000 month isn't a paycheck, but it's also not a disincentive to having another kid you can't afford and shouldn't bring into the world.

 

I question the need for that kind of credit given that all of the care for the child is being paid for anyway, but at the end of the day how many people would take advantage of that credit and it's only $1,000. Pretty much a drop in the bucket.

 

 

But the children are being born and this would benefit them. And we are talking about potentially adding 25% to your income. That's substantial. Could mean being able to get new job with a car or childcare.

[BigSqwert]

Random, surreal,

to lighten the mood.

[StrangeSox]

There's a wiki page detailing all of the 2016 newspaper endorsements along with a comparison to 2012, paper by paper.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_end..._election,_2016

 

Clinton 91

No endorsement 9

Not Donald Trump 8

Gary Johnson 6

Trump 0

 

In Ken Bone news, Snoop Dogg is inviting him over to smoke up

 

Snoop Dogg ✔ @SnoopDogg

Nice sweater @kenbone18. U should get it in blue. Come to the crib and smoke 1 wit Tha Dogg

12:58 PM - 11 Oct 2016

Edited October 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

InfoWars is saying that they'll pay people $5k if they disrupt Clinton's rallies with "BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST," so of course that's happening now.

[Quin]

Random, surreal,

to lighten the mood.

 

[RockRaines]

Sure. But the truest indicator is the push the kids get from the people around them. I live in a town with about a 50% poverty rate in the schools. My daughter goes to school with kids who are quite literally homeless. Her best friend has a dad who was never around, and mom who lost custody because she is a drug addict and part time criminal to pay for it. An Aunt who is herself working 3 jobs is raising this kid. Despite the situation the kid is close to a straight A student. It is all because the Aunt forced the child to do early education activities from day one of taking over her parenting. For other kids in the situation, school is nothing but a day care and lunch counter. Their performance reflects that as well. I mean government can try to help all it wants, but there is an absolutely vital period very early on that if development doesn't take place, the kid is close to doomed statistically speaking.

Parenting is definitely a factor if not the MAIN factor in those kids getting out of that situation.

[Chisoxfn]

Do not forget why so few people have "unendorsed" this disaster - because this remains what a very large fraction of their base wants. He surged to the lead because he told them it was ok to publicly hate certain groups of people because of how they look and who they are. Trump was actually right that Mitt Romney had to kowtow to him in 2012 - because he was the leader of the birther movement and that party's base is people in that movement.

 

They cannot stop being who their party is.

Just a reminder, that you make this statement, but there are a hell of a lot of republicans who have been very vocal against Trump. I don't think you ever saw me say anything kind about him and I've mentioned on multiple occasions how embarrassed I am. I also don't think you can just lump everyone voting for Trump or putting a vote his way or who supported him at any time as racist persay, you could absolutely lump almost all of them as being "frustrated" with the process. Now there are definitely a fair share who fall into the camp of "nutjobs / crazies", etc, and that doesn't just mean race, but plenty of other things.

 

 

[RockRaines]

The "pulling up your bootstraps" method doesn't work for everyone. When in poverty, often the parents get severely depressed and get other mental health issues.

A lot of the times those mental health issues are the reason the family is in poverty.

[StrangeSox]

 

Thank you women for saving US men from their dumb selves.

[greg775]

Dont talk about being arm and arm with fellow americans. You have demonstrated that there are plenty that you would rather not be around, either because of how they protest or how they dress

I don't know why you assume I am evil and Satan reincarnated so to speak.

a.) how they protest: Yes I get pissed when protestors hit the highways. It upsets me and I've said they should all be arrested. I said I"m OK with legal protesting. I am also against BLM members going up to innocents in libraries yelling at them. Does that make me the piece of scum you often suggest? Sorry I'm not always PC.

Oh and b.) how they dress. Well yes I was turned off, somewhat sickened by the site of the 65 year old man wearing a short skirt and high heels walking into the Subway and I chose not to eat there. Yes that is unChristian of me and unneighborly. I guess I can only tell u I need to work on that part of myself. There are people that would scream insults at him or mock him, but that doesn't excuse my distaste for seeing him walking in the high heels. If that makes me evil I guess you are right.

 

Here's the thing.

 

HRC is flawed...some of the recent revelations coming out about the DNC and Clinton campaigns vs. Bernie Sanders and his (young) supporters makes me cringe. She's much cozier with the banks and free trade tenets than she lets on in public, for example.

 

The difference in the two campaigns is one side is mostly divided on ideological grounds (Hillary is a one percenter), that's mostly an economic argument about what we truly believe about the efficacy of income redistribution in America.

 

On the other side, you have roughly 1/4 to 1/3rd of the likely Republican voters filled with hate and vitriol for foreigners, for black people (especially Obama), for Hispanics, for the LGBT community, misogynistic attitudes towards women, etc.

 

Greg, you may feel ethically/morally that HRC is corrupt and even should be arrested, but, as an American...can you honestly not see the difference? Is it simply that being branded a racist for being Republican (and not a Trump supporter) is what upsets you the most, being lumped in with the deplorables now instead of being able to hide behind a veneer of Ayn Rand rugged individualism and self-reliance? Or perhaps you perceive the Democrats as hating religion/God, and you believe that's worse than the different "ism" versions of hate coming out of the Trump campaign? That it's all somehow even because just as many Dems are atheist and "hate" God in your perception?

Well, I guess I am upset because I am a Republican but I'm not voting for Trump, even though nobody believes me. Trump is the kind of person who has ruined our economy. A one percenter who has stepped on the little guy, both ones working for him and in other industries. He's solely out for No. 1. But I equally despise Hillary (actually hate Hillary more) and I get upset because everyone on here thinks I love Trump. I've talked to a lot of people who despise both choices.

 

InfoWars is saying that they'll pay people $5k if they disrupt Clinton's rallies with "BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST," so of course that's happening now.

How do you claim the $5K? Weird. That InfoWars host hates Hillary for sure.

 

p.s. People that hate me on this board fail to realize we all have one thing in common: We love the Sox. Yet I'm still despised.

Edited October 11, 2016 by greg775