Yep,..if you cant feed your kids then they need to be placed in a stable home. Sure, everyone has bad times sometimes... but to stay on it for years.. to keep mooching. Something needs to change here..
Take away kids from poor homes?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep,..if you cant feed your kids then they need to be placed in a stable home. Sure, everyone has bad times sometimes... but to stay on it for years.. to keep mooching. Something needs to change here..
Have you ever seen a female hobo?
Have you ever seen a female hobo?
Why do you promote the encouragment of poverty by using human nature to develop a permanent underclass? Apparently, you have not heard or do not believe the old adage about giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish.Here's your statement: "As I have said before, it's time to bring the troops home from that War on Poverty. It's going on a 50 year war, and we are throwing money into a black hole." So yeah. it is going to be those who live in poverty who will pay and most who live in poverty are women and children. End of story.
List of Famous OrphansYou sure it doesn't work? Any trauma beyond starvation really is mute.
Friday, December 18, 2009
List of Famous Orphans
Are you talking about a family with mother and father or just some group you can cobble together and attach the word family to it?What about all of the negative effects on these kids? A lot of research has been done on bonding and familu ties and it has been found that removing children from thier parents is pretty harmful and produces psychological problems, etc. That is a big part of the reason we stopped doing it. Also, being poor does not make people bad parents or bad people.
So, by your reasoning government programs are, as a whole, failures. Every Dogooder program which was started and managed by the govt. has ended up in the toilet: from SS to the poverty enablement of the Great Society,I.E. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, to the dumbing down of our children by teachers under the auspices of the NEA.Yeah, I'm sure a huge body of work has been compiled on the subject, heres a good summary which I am sure you will ignore: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2rSLCQ&usg=AFQjCNGbOOtblayyR8OOCk5Bwp3nJK4OPw (Oh yeah, also most of your examples are either "orphaned" or infant adoptees - that is not the same as removed by social services and placed in orphanages or foster care.)
hers a link about how great most foster kids turn out: http://tucollaborative.org/pdfs/Too...ks/parenting/Factsheet_4_Resulting_Trauma.pdf
And another one for you not to even read or consider: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster14.htm
Excellent point on the disability stats...In spite of all the health and safety regs by OSHA, FDA and who knows what other acronym, the nanny state just can't keeps us safe.No But I have seen female homeless
On the war on poverty thing that we have had now for almost 50 years does anyone think we are winning ?
In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.
For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.
Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#3
Now after 50 years I would say we aren't winning. I don't say we should stop fighting but maybe we should change how we fight the war. What do you think ?
20 years ago there were 3,334,000 people on federal disability today there's 8,733,461 is it that much more dangerous out there ? 20 years ago it was 1 in 35 workers collecting now it's 1 in 15 workers collecting. The average payment is $1,111 a month that's $9.7 billion a month and $116.4 billion a year. And that's just one program.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8733461-workers-federal-disability-exceed-population-new-york-city
In 1984 85% of workers payed income taxes now only 51% pay.
![]()
Unsafe environments come in all shapes and sizes. Therefore it is relevant. Studies are tainted and have a pre-determined outcome. Reality is all these stories of abuse and neglect and to speculate there are the ones that go unreported.Pretty Irrelevant. It was a custody dispute and he was a crazy person. Has nothing to do with the topic of removing children from poor parents and how harmful that is. But if we were talking about poor handling of vidsitation by judges and social services, you would be right on the money. Try one of the other links.
Barack Obama "Food Stamp King" increased financial limits so more people would be able to find some assistance, and he has been wrongly criticized for it. And you can blame your Republican friends for the increase in food prices due to Bush's ethanol mandates....increased food cost directly passed to the consumer.Noone's taking food away from children living in poverty...It's the people who can't quite make it down to the poverty level who have to worry.