It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


SC Lt. Gov: Poor Like "Stray Animals." Don't Feed Them or "They Breed."

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:05 AM
Wow, this guy is a massive tool he's making rednecks look bad. granted some of the poor do really not work there is no reason to respond this way. Thank God I don't live near this moron. He definitely wouldn't be getting my vote.

[edit on 10-04-08 by Beach Bum]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by apacheman

I support cutting off all welfare, both for the individual and the corporation.

If someone or some company cannot survive on its own, then it must be allowed to die.

Good to see compassion alive and well. I really hope your not a religious person. lets also hope bad times never fall on you and yours.

I would have been dead years ago if it hadnt been for welfare, but then I guess i'm lucky enough to come from a country with a little more compassion for its citizens

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:25 AM
Great Article.

I have to agree with a simple point the article is addressing which is that poor or less intelligent folks do not know any better.

Well this is most likely truth. They really do not know any better, they have no real clue about what it takes to raise a healthy child in most circumstances. Most middle class men and women forget what being a child means or how to interact or even simply play with one.

It's truly shameful to have to miss out of special events, activities, friends and learning experiences due to financial insecurity.

Being unable to provide a fulfilling happy environment will cause major psychological problems within the child.

It is really not worth it to have a child if you are barely able to feed and house yourself properly.

The child's early life experience will be less stimulating resulting in lower mental functions including early memory loss/not remembering, inability to question surroundings/unable to assess situations clearly, lowered vocabulary lowered ability to think critically, depressive thoughts due to missed experiences and inability to take advantage of opportunity due to never having had opportunity or how to deal with opportunity.

I really disagree with the presented attitude of, "let them starve/take away means of public support" but its more than likely true that those types of people do not know any better and find their miserable degrading existence alright, but their child may find their parents situation stressful and unfulfilling causing problems instead of creating creative healthy individuals.

I would be glad to have someone review my response and reply with their own view.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:44 AM
Below is an article that validates my point above scientifically.


EEGs show brain differences between poor and rich kids

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 02 December 2008

BERKELEY — University of California, Berkeley, researchers have shown for the first time that the brains of low-income children function differently from the brains of high-income kids.

In a study recently accepted for publication by the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, scientists at UC Berkeley's Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and the School of Public Health report that normal 9- and 10-year-olds differing only in socioeconomic status have detectable differences in the response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity.

Child wired for EEG to test brain functionElectroencephalography, or EEG, uses electrodes on the scalp and held in place by a cap to measure underlying brain activity. (Lee Michael Perry/UC Berkeley)
Brain function was measured by means of an electroencephalograph (EEG) - basically, a cap fitted with electrodes to measure electrical activity in the brain - like that used to assess epilepsy, sleep disorders and brain tumors.

"Kids from lower socioeconomic levels show brain physiology patterns similar to someone who actually had damage in the frontal lobe as an adult," said Robert Knight, director of the institute and a UC Berkeley professor of psychology. "We found that kids are more likely to have a low response if they have low socioeconomic status, though not everyone who is poor has low frontal lobe response."

Previous studies have shown a possible link between frontal lobe function and behavioral differences in children from low and high socioeconomic levels, but according to cognitive psychologist Mark Kishiyama, first author of the new paper, "those studies were only indirect measures of brain function and could not disentangle the effects of intelligence, language proficiency and other factors that tend to be associated with low socioeconomic status. Our study is the first with direct measure of brain activity where there is no issue of task complexity."

Co-author W. Thomas Boyce, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of public health who currently is the British Columbia Leadership Chair of Child Development at the University of British Columbia (UBC), is not surprised by the results. "We know kids growing up in resource-poor environments have more trouble with the kinds of behavioral control that the prefrontal cortex is involved in regulating. But the fact that we see functional differences in prefrontal cortex response in lower socioeconomic status kids is definitive."

Boyce, a pediatrician and developmental psychobiologist, heads a joint UC Berkeley/UBC research program called WINKS - Wellness in Kids - that looks at how the disadvantages of growing up in low socioeconomic circumstances change children's basic neural development over the first several years of life.

"This is a wake-up call," Knight said. "It's not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health problems, but they might actually not be getting full brain development from the stressful and relatively impoverished environment associated with low socioeconomic status: fewer books, less reading, fewer games, fewer visits to museums."

Kishiyama, Knight and Boyce suspect that the brain differences can be eliminated by proper training. They are collaborating with UC Berkeley neuroscientists who use games to improve the prefrontal cortex function, and thus the reasoning ability, of school-age children.

"It's not a life sentence," Knight emphasized. "We think that with proper intervention and training, you could get improvement in both behavioral and physiological indices."

[edit on 25-1-2010 by delta9cannabinol]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:45 AM
Kishiyama, Knight, Boyce and their colleagues selected 26 children ages 9 and 10 from a group of children in the WINKS study. Half were from families with low incomes and half from families with high incomes. For each child, the researchers measured brain activity while he or she was engaged in a simple task: watching a sequence of triangles projected on a screen. The subjects were instructed to click a button when a slightly skewed triangle flashed on the screen.

The researchers were interested in the brain's very early response - within as little as 200 milliseconds, or a fifth of a second - after a novel picture was flashed on the screen, such as a photo of a puppy or of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

"An EEG allows us to measure very fast brain responses with millisecond accuracy," Kishiyama said.

The researchers discovered a dramatic difference in the response of the prefrontal cortex not only when an unexpected image flashed on the screen, but also when children were merely watching the upright triangles waiting for a skewed triangle to appear. Those from low socioeconomic environments showed a lower response to the unexpected novel stimuli in the prefrontal cortex that was similar, Kishiyama said, to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke.

"When paying attention to the triangles, the prefrontal cortex helps you process the visual stimuli better. And the prefrontal cortex is even more involved in detecting novelty, like the unexpected photographs," he said. But in both cases, "the low socioeconomic kids were not detecting or processing the visual stimuli as well. They were not getting that extra boost from the prefrontal cortex."

"These kids have no neural damage, no prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol, no neurological damage," Kishiyama said. "Yet, the prefrontal cortex is not functioning as efficiently as it should be. This difference may manifest itself in problem solving and school performance."

The researchers suspect that stressful environments and cognitive impoverishment are to blame, since in animals, stress and environmental deprivation have been shown to affect the prefrontal cortex. UC Berkeley's Marian Diamond, professor of integrative biology, showed nearly 20 years ago in rats that enrichment thickens the cerebral cortex as it improves test performance. And as Boyce noted, previous studies have shown that children from poor families hear 30 million fewer words by the time they are four than do kids from middle-class families.

"In work that we and others have done, it really looks like something as simple and easily done as talking to your kids" can boost prefrontal cortex performance, Boyce said.

"We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids - there are probably a zillion reasons why that happens," he said. "But changing developmental outcomes might involve something as accessible as helping parents to understand that it is important that kids sit down to dinner with their parents, and that over the course of that dinner it would be good for there to be a conversation and people saying things to each other."

"The study is suggestive and a little bit frightening that environmental conditions have such a strong impact on brain development," said Silvia Bunge, UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology who is leading the intervention studies on prefrontal cortex development in teenagers by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Boyce's UBC colleague, Adele Diamond, showed last year that 5- and 6-year-olds with impaired executive functioning, that is, poor problem solving and reasoning abilities, can improve their academic performance with the help of special activities, including dramatic play.

Bunge hopes that, with fMRI, she can show improvements in academic performance as a result of these games, actually boosting the activity of the prefrontal cortex.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:45 AM
"People have tried for a long time to train reasoning, largely unsuccessfully," Bunge said. "Our question is, 'Can we replicate these initial findings and at the same time give kids the tools to succeed?'"

This research is supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health.


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:47 AM
10 bucks says the starving poor people make it to heaven easier than this jagoff.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Dark Ghost

IMO responsible parenting is something that should apply to all levels of society. There are other reasons beside poverty that would sometimes make it unwise to have children. When I was very poor I chose not to have a child because I could not adequately provide for one.

Planning and providing for healthy children should be a goal of society as a whole.

It's when you try to isolate a segment of the population or force people in any way to conform to one's ideas of whether or not they "deserve" to reproduce that you skate perilously close to genocide.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Sestias]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:05 PM
His whole speech was cryptic code for supporting eugenics attitudes and the belief that some races are not as equal as others. Of course that makes him more equal than his constituents and fellow citizens. It appears to be an attempt to curry favor with those elites who can make one rich and powerful if only he can prove he is on board and in the know about what to think and say about the poor and of course those people.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Plasma applicator
reply to post by ldyserenity

Really, what about Gandhi, Mandela, Robert Mitchem, Cash, Hilton, well maybe not Hilton but there have been a lot of people in jail that have contributed more than you, would be murderer.

Ghandi and Mandella didn't serve prison time in The U.S. Most of the US citizens in prison are very very lowlife scumbags...I did say murderers and child molesters, the illegal immigrants in our prisons can be deported as far as I am concerned, but that is not the point I was trying to make, Paris Hilton was a driving violation or somehting petty like that if I remember correctly, that's another story, that's Jail not prison, that's the difference, I have no clue who robert michum is or what he did, But I was meaning gang bangers, drug lords, theives, etc. that and the two big aforementioned types of criminals. Those that would never have been a contriution to our society. But, then You'd also have to be 100 percent sure that the guilty were not wrongly fuond guilty as well, which is another problem, but let's just call those collateral damage, like the poor these people would like to starve to death?

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by delta9cannabinol

I noticed a fundamental flaw in that study: nowhere did they mention the effect of nutrition or lack thereof.

Take a rich kid and raise him or her under poverty conditions and you'll get the same result, so the genetics of rich kids aren't superior to poor kids'.

Anyway, it simply shows that rich people, by refusing to pay living wages are directly responsible for damaging the health and mental functioning of their fellow citizens for the sublimely important and useful purpose of stoking their egos and allowing themselves to feel superior.

This is otherwise known as a crime against humanity. It also goes by conservative compassion and Christian fellowship.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Dark Ghost

I know poverty first hand since my parents have been unemployed since february 2009. They have been looking for jobs for a long time now with no success so my dad he is like a handy man and he goes to neighborhoods and asks people if there is anything they need fixed for some money since he was a carpenter and my mom is going to college for sociology degree. They never had to use welfare but once back in 2002 and that was only food stamps. I lived most of my life below the poverty line but now it is really bad. And trust me in Florida you really don't wanna be on welfare since the unemployment maximum is $245 per week. That is why it really pisses me off when people with money talk badly about people without money. I can only speak for my family when it comes to welfare but I don't understand how anybody could actually want to live on welfare.

Dude this is could be describing my situation perfectly, except I am not in school... But I am looking to enroll very soon...just to get a degree which will help me hopefully find a job....this is so scary!!!! I even live in Florida as well.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:58 PM
I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, is so "ignorant" or "incorrect" about what he said.

Lots of righteous indignation with little substance going on, but that's pretty normal I suppose.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by KrazyJethro

H-e s-a-i-d h-e-'-s f-o-r s-t-a-r-v-i-n-g p-e-o-p-l-e t-o d-e-a-t-h b-ec-a-u-s-e t-h-e-y a-r-e p-o-o-r.

There, I've spelled it out for you. Understand now?

I hope you're above the poverty line or you and your children on his list to eliminated.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

It always humorous when people bring up the word compassion when it comes to spending other peoples money.

Be compassionate with your own wallet, not mine.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:16 PM
Although the guy came off as an elitist jerk. I actually found a few points we both agreed on. When asked to expand on his statement he said:

he said government hasn't made requirements to make those receiving aid be more responsible.

"They can continue to have more and more kids, and the reward is there's more and more money in it for them."

Instead, he said, the government should place incentives in its welfare programs, such as providing child care so parents can work or receive education so they can break the welfare cycle.

Government continues to reward bad behavior by giving money to people who "don't have to do a thing," he said.

We need to do more proactive things to break the cycle of poverty and government assistance. Unfortunately all we seem to find are knee-jerk solutions which end up punishing the truly needy and have little effect overall.

[edit on 1/25/2010 by clay2 baraka]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:18 PM
Anyone on welfare who also has children should have their kids placed in foster homes until they are able to provide for their family without the aid of a government check.

What more motivation could one possibly need to get their crap together than to get their family back?

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by brainwrek
Anyone on welfare who also has children should have their kids placed in foster homes until they are able to provide for their family without the aid of a government check.

What more motivation could one possibly need to get their crap together than to get their family back?

If they are in Foster Care, the Gov still pays for them with a check.

Next .

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by woodwardjnr

It always humorous when people bring up the word compassion when it comes to spending other peoples money.

Be compassionate with your own wallet, not mine.

I bet you didn't know that 90 Percent of the people who volunteer and or donate money to those in need are those whom can't afford to offer their time (they could better spend it taking a second job and line their own pockets with more cash) and money(which they only have very little of themselves) ...those that are struggling themselves are the most compassionate people on Earth...Just saying.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by Sean48

This is about motivating the welfare recipients. Sending a check every month provides no motivation for someone to improve their situation. They need to be motivated to stop relying on the taxpayer.


top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in