• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly half of American children living near poverty line

Right, because the teenagers who are having them are really listening to you. This sort of remonstration hasn't worked for 50 years. Give it up ...

if the $$$upport goes away and these teenagers figure out theyre going to have to get a job and pay for their children then their behaviour will change fast.
 
Don't worry, if we cut off these programs, they'll be ok. The private sector will save them.
 
This is what happens when Republicans send all our jobs overseas with their trade agreements.
 
if the $$$upport goes away and these teenagers figure out theyre going to have to get a job and pay for their children then their behaviour will change fast.

Is that what happens in the Hood? Me thinks someone is living in a fantasy world.
 
Get the parents out of the cycle by training and ensure the children get a good quality education and the problem will resolve itself for the most part. I have no problem feeding a person while they learn to fish, but somewhere along the line they need to get out there and do some fishing for themselves.

Well put, and full of mature wisdom.

... and I would also suggest that one way to bring jobs Back to the US is to treat all products made overseas by American companies as imports and add heavy tariffs so that it does not behoove those companies to offshore jobs that can be done in the US by Americans that need jobs.

TPP will assure that foreign countries cannot produce and sell knock-offs of our patented products in the US. (Remember, this is the reason China was not at the table when TPP was being formulated by the original countries - and for that very reason cited. The same will happen soon with Europe, because for the moment TPP is only to be signed by the Pacific Rim signatories.)

I made the point that the further down-market you go in technology, the more it's worthwhile to make that product abroad. Unfortunately that seems the case for a good number of upmarket products as well. That smart-phone we all use will never be produced in the US because it's end cost would price it out of the market.

(Frankly, I have never understood why nimble-fingered women in China were any more nimble-fingered than Indian women on reservations in the US. Why are they not being employed in this manner? Why not sign another treaty with the Indian Nations that exclude their people from paying any Income Tax?)

Unless, of course, we can convince Americans that they should only buy made-in-USA produce. That has never worked, however. Americans, like just about everybody on this planet, want the most bang-for-their-buck.

The point I made is that there is no "artificial import-tax manner" that will protect higher-cost American workers. If we try that, the countries affected will slap import-taxes on our products. We did that post-WW1 and it just help bring about the Great Depression in the 1930s.

So, it behooves us to get our finger out and make it as easy as humanly possible to get more Americans up the educational ladder in order to assure a middle-class existence.

I've seen the Swiss, Germans and Scandinavian countries do this, so why not us? Because we still think we are the "Greatest Country on Earth" and don't need to do so? Just after-WW2, yes. But that was a 70 years ago.

OK, so let's all vote for Trump - and in 8 years we shall be having this discussion all over again because nothing will have changed ...
 
Last edited:
So how can we solve this? JOBS.
Years ago, Cons were laughing about those of us who said that this outsourcing crap is slowly bringing us down to our knees. Some still do. Most are now voting for Trump. Did he all the sudden wake you up and make you realize that sending jobs away in an endless and unfair trading business hurts the bottom line?
Jobs that could be manned by uneducated folks are being taken away by foreigners to boot.
how do you stop the outsourcing though? - only way is to stop buying foreign goods, that way a company knows if they relocate to cheaper labor mkt there will be a price to pay. so far Americans dont care though so nobody to blame but themselves
 
Not everyone is near the poverty line because of their own doing. So lets not judge everyone from a high pedestal.

You're right. Not everyone is near poverty because of their own doing. But many are, or they were raised in circumstances that set them back a notch. Once upon a time, people didn't have kids unless they were married, and they tended to stay married so they always or almost always had income coming in. So if you want to solve the poverty problem, for starters figure out a way to get people to stop having babies out of wedlock. That's often a straight ticket to the poor house.

Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births - US News
 
Last edited:
You're right, but how do you expect that to happen? All by itself?

No, but it's funny how many of these behaviors only came to the fore after Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society programs were created. For example, when you pay people for having babies out of wedlock while telling Daddy to get lost (other than paying his share of the bill, which he often doesn't), why is anyone surprised when women do and Daddy does? :confused:
 
I am up to HERE with the 'for the CHILDREN'.

Adults who have children are responsible for them. It is no one else's responsibility. People help because they choose to, and mandating others to do the same (usually via taxes) relieves the parents of that responsibility.

Can't afford to support them? Then don't have them. Was able to, but life took a temporary bad turn? That's what assistance is for, not those who made bad choices from the get go.....

And that's certainly why no one should be trying to block access to abortion. It makes no sense at all when people are complaining about the issue of children at risk of poverty which is a major factor to many other handicaps to opportunities in their lives.

Claiming 'dont have sex' is the silliest, most poorly-thought out response to this of course. Not only is it ridiculous to expect married couples to abstain from sex (and no birth control method is 100%), people have been having sex FOREVER. All thru history having sex has meant disease, death, being stoned, public humilation, exile, being disowned, becoming a social pariah, not being able to get employment beyond prostitute, etc. And many of these apply to men as well. Today with better medical technology and medicine, safer abortion, and fewer social barriers, of course people are not going to have 'less' sex.
 
EurekAlert:

'Nuf said? So whadawe gonna do aboudit? Wait for the "gummint" to fix-it?

We've been waiting already for decades - the above is just the latest in a long series of warnings of the "dumbing-down of America" ...

been wanting to ask you this question for awhile

you live in France

yet you talk as if America is your home...i dont know if it is, or it isnt

are you an american citizen?

are you just working abroad?

or are you just another in a long line of europeans that want to tell us Americans that we are doing it wrong?

inquiring minds want to know.....
 
if the $$$upport goes away and these teenagers figure out theyre going to have to get a job and pay for their children then their behaviour will change fast.

Historically it didnt and 'teenagers' didnt have the public assistance and other support mechanisms available today, so can you explain why you think that would work today?
 
Historically it didnt and 'teenagers' didnt have the public assistance and other support mechanisms available today, so can you explain why you think that would work today?


really

in 1950 if you got knocked up by your boyfriend, what happened?

a. you got married, sometimes both at the point of a shotgun
b. you were sent away to distant relatives, to have the baby, and then give it up for adoption
c. you were taken care of by your parents, who helped you raise the child
d. you found one of the backroom doctors who performed abortions in secret

those were your choices....the government didnt come riding in to town with a check for you and the baby

it was up to you to figure it out
 

The proof is that teens did indeed have sex outside marriage and without means to support kids all through history.

Do you deny this?
 
really

in 1950 if you got knocked up by your boyfriend, what happened?

a. you got married, sometimes both at the point of a shotgun
b. you were sent away to distant relatives, to have the baby, and then give it up for adoption
c. you were taken care of by your parents, who helped you raise the child
d. you found one of the backroom doctors who performed abortions in secret

those were your choices....the government didnt come riding in to town with a check for you and the baby

it was up to you to figure it out

Ah, you seem to be forgetting the topic of the OP....what happens AFTER that birth (unless the abortion or adoption took place)

Those 'families' often lived in poverty, at least for awhile during the developmental childhood years, and those kids...then and today...are at higher risk of remaining in that cycle of poverty.
 
The proof is that teens did indeed have sex outside marriage and without means to support kids all through history.

Do you deny this?

and has the rate increased since the welfare programs began?
 
Get the parents out of the cycle by training and ensure the children get a good quality education and the problem will resolve itself for the most part.

Get the parents out of the cycle? So you want teachers to not only teach but be surrogate parents, too? (Aren't they already? :roll:) I don't know if you've noticed, but we spend a lot of money in this country on education, and one reason it isn't working is lack of parental involvement, often because only one parent exists in the household. How about we try to figure out a way to increase parental involvement instead and hold parents accountable for properly raising their kids? When they don't, then you can get them out of the cycle.
 
and has the rate increased since the welfare programs began?

I doubt it. People have sex...no matter what the obstacles. It's the strongest instinct on Earth.

But feel free to prove otherwise.
 
I doubt it. People have sex...no matter what the obstacles. It's the strongest instinct on Earth.

But feel free to prove otherwise.

nah, you made the assertion that there was no change in rate of out of wedlock birth despite welfare programs coming on line. its up to you to prove, not me.
 
Claiming 'dont have sex' is the silliest, most poorly-thought out response to this of course. Not only is it ridiculous to expect married couples to abstain from sex (and no birth control method is 100%), people have been having sex FOREVER.

Married couples aren't the problem. It's the unmarried ones (single-parent households) who are, and yet even before the advent of the pill people who weren't married but were presumably "having sex forever" still seemed to be able to keep out-of-wedlock births in check.

b2465_chart3.jpg
 
nah, you made the assertion that there was no change in rate of out of wedlock birth despite welfare programs coming on line. its up to you to prove, not me.

I never said no change, I said that nothing, including the prospect of poverty, has ever stopped humanity from having sex.

If you wish to dispute that...feel free.
 
Back
Top Bottom