Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
Contrary to what you believe...
There are many stories of people who are raised in large poverty stricken famlies that rise to success.
|
Yes there are many such stories that you referred to. However, there are many more tragic stories where children raised in similar situations fail or never reach their potential.
Here is a recent report of children in poverty.
Quote:
|
The U.S. Census Bureau reports on U.S. poverty rates as they relate to children and their family status. They report on individuals under 18 who are in a household by birth, marriage or adoption but are not themselves a householder. The poverty rate within this group of individuals is 21.4 percent. That’s 15.4 million children. It grows further distressing when one considers that children under six have a poverty rate of 24.5 percent. That’s 5.8 million children. Simply put, one in four young children in the U.S. are being born and raised in poverty.
|
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2013/...of-nation.html
From the same link here is data on children being raised by single mom families
Quote:
|
The type of household in which a child is raised is a factor. Around 47 percent who lived only with a female householder were in poverty, compared to only 10 percent of related children in married couple families. Furthermore, more than half of related children under six in families with a female householder were in poverty. This statistic is four and a half times the percentage of children under the age of six in poverty within married coupled families.
|
Also, the demographics show that African American children are at a greater risk to be in poverty
Quote:
|
The story worsens when you consider race. African American children are among the largest race group facing child poverty; their rate is 38.2 percent, twice as high as the rate for white children.
|
As for the success stories that you referred to
Quote:
In economics, the cycle of poverty is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."[1]
The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations, i.e., for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or escape poverty; in calculations of expected generation length and ancestor lifespan, the lower median age of parents in these families is offset by the shorter lifespans in many of these groups.
Such families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle.[2] This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, poverty-stricken individuals experience disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increases their poverty. This would mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives.[1] This cycle has also been referred to as a "pattern" of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.[3]
The poverty cycle is usually called "development trap" when it is applied to countries.[1]
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_cycle
What are the percentage of this poverty cycle? At least 40% in the US (from the same link above) Also pay attention to the bolded text.
Quote:
|
Another paper, titled Do poor children become poor adults?, which was originally presented at a 2004 symposium on the future of children from disadvantaged families in France, and was later included in a 2006 collection of papers related to the theme of the dynamics of inequality and poverty, discusses generational income mobility in North America and Europe. The paper opens by observing that in the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults, four in ten in the United Kingdom, and one-third in Canada. The paper goes on to observe that rich children also tend to become rich adults—four in ten in the U.S. and the U.K., and as many as one-third in Canada. The paper argues, however, that money is not the only or even the most important factor influencing intergenerational income mobility. The rewards to higher skilled and/or higher educated individuals in the labor market and the opportunities for children to obtain the required skills and credentials are two important factors. Reaching the conclusion that income transfers to lower income individuals may be important to children in the here in now, but they should not be counted on to strongly promote generational mobility. The paper recommends that governments focus on investments in children to ensure that they have both the skills and opportunities to succeed in the labor market, and observes that though this has historically meant promoting access to higher and higher levels of education, it is becoming increasingly important that attention be paid to preschool and early childhood education.[6]
|
[quote=gator996;6309562]I find it more than contradictory that those who want no infringement of freedom & liberty by the government want to infringe here and throw the kids on the responsibility of the state.
This statement has the strong smell of someone trolling.
In response to this statement: There are two parties here that have their rights. One party is the parents (or parent) and the other party is the children.
These children are afford the same consideration of ""Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and are afford rights by the US Constitution "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
The situation present in OP shows that the mother (or egg donor) has no concept of what her responsibility is when it comes to in the statement "provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare" for her 15 children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
If you're bitchin' about the cost of the welfare the mother wants what can you say about the higher costs of taking her children away.
|
Actually the cost to the community to keep these children with their mother will be far greater than it would be for the state to put them in a better situation. For one thing the odds of breaking the cycle of poverty are better. Instead of drawing public assistance as an adult and creating the next generation of poverty they will be producers and providers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
This woman needs education, job skills training, and a job more than any other type of assistance.
|
I hate to call anyone a loser but in this case that poor mother is a loser.
She most likely needs years of therapy, coaching, and restructuring to be a fit parent. By that time her children will be fully grown. All is not lost in that scenario. She may be rehabilited enough to be a good grand mother to her 30 to 60+ future grand children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
Personally, I don't think that woman is representative of anything on a large scale...
Other than the hopelessness of poverty, especially when the father has been incarcerated.
|
In this case the father you referred to is at the most a sperm donor.
You are partially wrong on your statement of misrepresentation. She is the exception when it comes to the number of children but not to the other statistics.
Quote:
Prevalence: Single motherhood is very common. Around half of today’s mothers will spend at least some time as the sole custodial parent.
Update: As of 2011, 11.7 million families in the US were headed by a single parent, 85.2% of which were headed by a female.1 Prevalence: Single motherhood is very common. Around half of today’s mothers will spend at least some time as the sole custodial parent.
Update: As of 2011, 11.7 million families in the US were headed by a single parent, 85.2% of which were headed by a female.1
According to The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, the annual earnings single-parent families plummet 20% between 2007 and 2010, compared to only 5% for two-parent families.3
Poverty: Two fifths of single mother families are poor, triple the poverty rate for the rest of the population. Single-mother families are nearly five times as likely to be poor than married-couple families.
The poverty rate for single-mother families is 40.7% compared to 8.8% for married-couple families.4 The majority of poor children are in single mother families with 24% of children now living in such households.5
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
Is this woman any more representative than "Octo-Mom" who has 14 kids and lives off of public assistance...
...and yet isn't seen as representative of "leftie" politics, the "ghetto" subculture, etc.
To be honest, I think most of what's written here is because its a black family.
|
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the Octo-Mom is getting a pass because she is white? If so that assumption is way off the mark. When the first story of the Octo-Mom (she is Assyrian/Iraqi) broke many people were disgusted with her and had concerns for her children. Many people were calling for child protective services and the Octo-Mom was getting a lot of some unwelcomed attention from these people.
[quote=gator996;6309562]Taking the children away, forced adoption, sterilization, lack of morality, lack of god in education, etc. have all been discussed in this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
I just wonder if it was a white poor family of 15, if all of these topics would even have been brought up for discussion?
This black family becomes representative of the "47%" and draws all sort of political criticism but a non-black family like Octomom doesn't become representative a greater portion of white society.
|
Yes they would because the same objections were raised with the Octo-Mom
Quote:
|
The core problem with this case is that people are just very pissed off at how irresponsible everyone has been in this situation....Nadya, her doctors, her parents and anyone else you can think of who helped to facilitate this.
|
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267414
Also, in the recent news the Octo-Mom is now back on welfare. News that a lot of people do not find amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator996
Some of what is contained in this thread smacks of the breakup of the black family that occured during slavery.
|
Actually the breakup of the black family since the 1960's War on Poverty (thanks LBJ) makes the breakup during the slave years look like a family reunion.
Yes family were broken up durning the slave days but not to the degree we saw since the 1960's.
Linear Mode
