It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US children face worst poverty in Western world

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Don't the rich pay most of the taxes in the US?

I thought that the rich pay very few taxes (relative to earnings), due to creative accounting and write-offs.

Don't the rich also exploit the poor?

When I see executive salaries in the millions per year and peons getting paid $9 an hour, something's not right... The gap between people widens and creates more friction.

Apologies if anyone thought I was starting some kind of black/white thing in this thread. I wasn't. The news item didn't specifically focus on blacks and neither was I.

To me, it's disgraceful that the USA has so many poor children. What a f'd up society to let that happen in this day and age.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
A lot of NZ children have to be fed by their teachers because they go to school with no food.

We have great food banks here though, which really helps.

Do you have food banks in the US?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


You must be joking, the US welfare system is laughable. Its more like the rich are barely keeping the slaves alive.
If you want to learn about how welfare system should be look at the nordic system where equal means equal!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This isn't a sign of anything other than we have a nation that is getting less intelligent and undereducated each and every year, regardless of race.

If you cannot work enough to feed your own children then you shouldn't keep having them. The best thing we could is do some sort of forced but reversible sterilization on anyone receiving welfare for more than a year.

A couple should be able to work at Taco Bell and be able to pay the rent and feed their kids, but there are so many peple that would rather by drugs, alchohol, or a new set of rims or a gold tooth grill before they feed their own kids. Why is this? Because they know the taxpayer will take care of thier kids.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by HotSauce]


you're not gonna be able to feed your kids, house them, warm that house, clothe them, and provide medical care for them on a job from taco bell, I don't believe, not anywhere!!! Especially if you a single mom, heck, that taco bell job won't even cover your child care expense!!

And, well, the article doesn't state just how much these people are getting from foodstamps. I looked at a few income guidelines for the program from different states, and it seems that a family of four can gross over $2,000 a month and qualify for food stamps. of course, I know some of these families are only getting $50 or less in food stamps.
My job doesn't pay no $2,000 a month, and I have about 8 years of experience in the trade. so, well, it's not that the people need to get out and get a job, although I do wish some of them would get out and get a job. So didn't the gov't obviously, since now, they are required, to go out and get a job!!!
but, it's that they've allowed the cost of living to run away. The wages of most people haven't gone up hardly at all...unless of course we're talking about upper management, who seem to be making more money than they could spend in a lifetime, who have run out of things to do with all that money and want to play the wall street gamble with your life, who don't pay social security for much of that money, who seem to earn that money by charging the highest price possible for their wares while reducing the cost of production mainly by paying the lowest wage possible to everyone except their buddies in management! Who then gripe because they find, that hey it's their income bracket that is paying the most in taxes.....

hey, who do want to be paying the most in taxes, those earning under $2,000/year, so we can just give more back to them, so they can have their car, their food, their shelter, ect, and still be able to go to work for yas every day and earn you your profits??? not to mention buy your overpriced wares???

this isn't a sign of nothing but an economy grossly out of equilibrium.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Well, we can thank over zealous Liberals for that. This is not political trolling, but think about it. They started welfare to help people who did not have a penny to their name. Then liberals wanted to give blacks "equal" opportunities by trying to increase their "cost of living". Then it became a way of life for them. They started pumping out kids in record numbers to support themselves and their drug/alcohol problems. So now people dont even try to get jobs, they depend on welfare and so the vicious circle continues as their kids do the same thing or end up in prison.


I partially agree, but I dont think they have so many kids because of welfare.
As a rule of thumb, the poorer someone is, the more kids he has. You can see this all over the world, in Africa, European states and in US, too.

The only solutions I see is getting them out of poverty, or mandatory birth control when on welfare.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Edit to remove, post to wrong thread


[edit on 3-11-2009 by yizzel]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
reply to post by eradown
 


As I stated earlier.

The article is the one mentioning race.

I am one of the few who can discuss race. I feel bad for the rest of you who feels like it is a taboo subject.

If you feel uncomfortable discussing race (calling others racist doesn't count) then I don't think there is a need for us to keep replying to each other.

Goodnight.


Whoever wrote the article wanted people to ignore the root causes of poverty in this country namely the destruction of the family and unequal access to educational opportunities. These things can and should be changed. They wanted the readers to not identify with the poor. This is why race was brought up ,and not the marital status of the parents. Amazing, that anyone could not see through the article.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Well, we can thank over zealous Liberals for that. This is not political trolling, but think about it. They started welfare to help people who did not have a penny to their name. Then liberals wanted to give blacks "equal" opportunities by trying to increase their "cost of living". Then it became a way of life for them. They started pumping out kids in record numbers to support themselves and their drug/alcohol problems. So now people dont even try to get jobs, they depend on welfare and so the vicious circle continues as their kids do the same thing or end up in prison.


I partially agree, but I dont think they have so many kids because of welfare.
As a rule of thumb, the poorer someone is, the more kids he has. You can see this all over the world, in Africa, European states and in US, too.

The only solutions I see is getting them out of poverty, or mandatory birth control when on welfare.



Sorry, the US is barely reproducing it's population. You are advocating the total destruction of our country by suggesting mandatory birth control. If the elite (bail out winners) want to rule let them go back to having thirteen children. They can afford to, and I don't think anyone should help them by destroying what they consider competition other people's children. You are channeling Herod.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by eradown]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Wow, who would have thought that the idea of only having children IF you can financially support them would be so controversial. I guess commonsense is not so common these days.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
This is in no way a race issue IMO

Second line.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by eradown


Sorry, the US is barely reproducing it's population. You are advocating the total destruction of our country by suggesting mandatory birth control. If the elite (bail out winners) want to rule let them go back to having thirteen children. They can afford to, and I don't think anyone should help them by destroying what they consider competition other people's children. You are channeling Herod.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by eradown]


Yeah, I also consider western countries reproduction rates to be too low to allow mandatory birth control. Theres no easy solution to this...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Hey I have a solution.... Stop paying welfare to able bodied individuals. Lets apply a little "get off your ass" attitude to this situation. If you are on the governement dole you should be on mandatory birth control. If you can support yourself you sure as hell shouldn't be squirting out one child after another.

It's time to address the problem. First and foremost we need responsible parents. The inner city single mom syndrome is completely out of control. Get off your ass, stop spreading your legs!



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
How about uncapping the social security tax....
this might do a few things...
it would give the gov't more money to meet the needs of those who truly need help (and that number is bound to grow considering the state of the economy).
and well, it might give employers one less incentive to consolidate all the raises and bonuses to the big earners....since they'd be paying taxes on it regardless.
what we need if a lower cost of living accompanied by higher wages for the lower income...

ya, we have lots of single women out there avoiding work through childbirth, but considering the cost of child care, compared to what they can make, it often is a loss for them to work! and yes, we have a few deadbeat dads labeled as disabled in an attempt to avoid childsupport.
we have all that...
but, we also have alot of families who are working, but still falling within the range where they are eligible for these programs.
and well, it might not be a good idea to kill these programs just now because we have a god awful lot of people out there who want to work, but have lost their jobs, ran out of their unemployment, and can't find anything.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join