And the youtube citation gets me a BINGO! Yeah baby!

Really?

I'm saying that you got lucky. Extremely lucky to have been born with certain traits and in certain conditions and without others. But the vast majority of people are not lucky, and so they're unable to do some of the things you did. And it's not just about physical issues. You sound like a sharp guy, imagine traveling your path with, say, an IQ that's 40 points lower. Think you'd be where you are?

And no, I'm not saying that the opportunity of jobs isn't a problem. Life isn't that simple. There are a host of causes of poverty, and there are no easy solutions. It's certainly not as simple as every poor person just running out and getting a job at a bagel shop.

It's always funny when the party that talks about unintended consequences, advocates abstinence only education and works to close down women's sexual health centres rages against single mothers.

By the way, 38.9% of Americans will spend at least 1 year in poverty, 44.8% will use welfare assistance for at least 1 year, but only 3.8% stay chronically impoverished, that being in poverty for 3 or more years.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ndholding.html

So it would seem like it's less of a "culture of poverty" or people choosing to be poor, than it is a feature of our economic system. Lots of people will be empoverished at some point in their lives but they rarely stay there.

What is the vehicle through which welfare is supposed to bring people out of poverty?

Just give them enough money so that they're middle class?

I'm really curious how you think it works.

I’m against people putting themselves in poverty:

It’s not that complicated: $7.25 X 40 X 52 = $15,080. So if you’re a single woman and your only employment prospects are minimum wage, don’t get pregnant. How best to accomplish that feat I’ll leave to the individual’s discretion.

Quite frankly, all three of those opinions are overly simplistic and won't help or solve anything.

They were in a relationship when they got pregnant, idiot. Just because the father abandoned her and their kid doesn't mean they should be punished. You also don't take into account that all contraceptives have a failure rate before you even include human nature of misuse.

Also it's a terrible slippery slope to start at the conclusion poor people shouldn't have kids then work backwards refusing to actually understand the situation along the way.

Where did anyone imply that people should be punished for having kids?

non-profit job placement centers that provide job training are crucial. Qualifiers would be that you have to be on welfare or have a criminal record to get into the program - can't provide free job training AND placement (through job marketers that market clients according to their strengths) to everyone. Make it an 8 week program of 8am to 4pm GED,math, english, resume, interviewing classes.

Lots of people have been talking about removing welfare. Once you start the process to blame them it becomes easier to punish them.

Interesting article. I had no idea the chronic poverty rate was as low as it is.

Can't say I'm excited that the small government party wants to help the poor by adding another layer of bureaucracy to government. The idea is that it will help the government figure out how best to spend the money, but wouldn't individuals be better at figuring that out for themselves?

Yeah but except for you, no one actually mentioned that we should punish the poor for having kids right?

What is "sorry you got pregnant and your man ran away, instead of helping you with welfare like used to happen or even just forcing him to pay for his kid we will instead do nothing for you" if it isnt punishment?

This entire discussion is both poor shaming and slut shaming at the same time.

For a third time, did anyone here actually say we should reduce welfare benefits if the beneficiary gets pregnant?

If not, then who are you arguing with here?

So you are saying Person A has a child with Person B (we don't know what sort of a relationship they had). Person B leaves Person A with the responsibility of the child (I am curious as to what percentage you would put on someone knowing if Person B was the type of person that would abandon a child). You're stating that Person A should not be punished for having/keeping that child. Is that correct?

Could you give me your argument for why Person C (the person who pays for the welfare cost now needed by Person A) should be punished for Person A having/keeping a child?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

My value added>Your value added>>>>>>>Ikes value added.

I’m somewhat of a realist in that I discourage people from making decisions that have a decent enough chance of failure, but I realize some won’t and I don’t get all upset and extremist about it. For instance, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with advising young women to postpone the decision to have a child until they’ve maxed-out their education potential and gotten started on a career—just in case their mate selection turns into a deadbeat and they’re left trying to raise a child in highly disadvantageous conditions.

What are you saying here? Who are the "good people who need a little extra help," and who are the "free loaders" who I assume don't need the help?

Is this you (irrationally) reverting back to some misguided belief in rampant fraud and abuse? If so, what do you base this opinion on?

And lastly, which entitlement program irks you the most and why?

Welfare - not because of the concept but because it has become a way of life. if you are going to collect you should be forced to show up at a job, be drug tested and be on some kind of educational plan to move onto a better life...if you don't show up, study and pass a drug test you are done. I am even ok with some wiggle room for a failed drug test...but not several weeks or months in a row.

part of recieving welfare should be a path to a better life and effort to get there. if that is to much to ask for there is no hope for the person and no point in wasting money on them.

What specifically are you referring to WRT "welfare?" TANF? Because it's temporary by definition.

And IDK what to think about the last paragraph. Most likely you're grossly misinformed about everything being discussed, as evidenced by the vague disdain for all things welfare.

That seems pretty random.

Because the "harm" done to person C is outweighed by the gain to person A and society as a whole.

If killing 1 innocent person would save the lives of a million, would you do it? The world isn't as black and white as you want to believe it is, and often it's entirely moral to harm someone for the greater good.