The "poor" here are speaking up for themselves in LTTE. Great idea.

[madfloridian]

Things must be getting ugly here for those who are needy. This is two letters in one week. The atmosphere created by Jeb is not one of sympathy unless you are rich and a supporter of him. I am very teary after reading them. The economy will be the factor.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003312270414

SNIP..."We May Be Poor But We're Not 'Sub-People'

This is in response to the letter from Bob Bowser about being poor by circumstance. We have a family of seven, five of them are our children. About 13 years ago my husband owned his own business, we were buying a house on Scott Lake, and expecting our first child. Then someone chose to get drunk and drive. Talk about "poor by circumstance," it changed our lives and the lives of our children in ways unimagined by us...."

SNIP..."I am not less than you, I am not trash. I am clean and respectable. My children are excellent examples of what a good parent can accomplish with love and devotion. We're just poor. When I slide my food stamp card on the checkout ahead of you, don't give me that "you must be one of those scum that is using the government" looks because it may be you someday with nothing....."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003312220307
Poverty Not Self-Inflicted

SNIP..."It's tough trying to live on about $9,000 a year for two people, especially when both have medical problems and part of this pays for school. The Internet is our only luxury -- and needed for school.

Not all the poor are that way because of their own fault. In fact, a good percentage are poor because of external factors.

Historically, the Democratic Party has always had problems with crooked politicians, but supported the poor -- and the Republican Party has supported big businesses and left out the poor...."END SNIP

[proud patriot]

1. Wonderful ..good letters

:thumbsup:

[Democrats unite]

2. Well as fo me living in Florida...

My two goals are oust Bush on 04 & then repeat in 06!


edit spelling

[Columbia]

3. People should not be looked down upon if they are poor

But don't you think it is a little irresponsible of the author of the first letter to have 5 children if they are not financially able to support them?

[madfloridian]

5. Oooh, I am afraid to answer you.

I am biting my tongue to keep from being banned. Shame on you.

[liberalhistorian]

6. LOL!

Me, too, madfloridian, believe me!

[Columbia]

7. If you are so afraid

PM me and tell me why you think it is responsible for a family without the means to support several children to have them anyway.

[LeahMira]

35. Families make commitments...

... of the basis of their financial position and reasonable expectations at the time the commitments are made.

If you buy a large house on the basis of the fact that you are earning enough to pay the mortgage easily and that situation changes with job loss or "downsizing," you can always sell the house and move to a more modest home. You can't sell the kids though.

Duh!


tell me why you think it is responsible for a family without the means to support several children to have them anyway.

[Mikimouse]

25. Ummmm, I believe that the first letter was from a family that ALREADY

had the children before the husband was disabled. So, the children didn't come after the accident, but before. No other comment at the risk of becoming what I loathe.

[Columbia]

31. Negative n/t

[asjr]

43. You

beat me to it!

[Democrats unite]

8. Did you not read the letter?

He had owned his own business. Shit happens!


on edit: P.S. I don't like to bite my tounge!

[Columbia]

9. I did

And they had four children after that tragic accident.

[liberalhistorian]

10. Oh, really?

So you're saying that people don't have the right to have kids unless they have a certain income? So now, in addition to all the other endless bullshit those without much money have to put up with every day, including having nutball politicians take as many rights away from them as they can think of, and putting as many obstacles in their way that they can (and I've personally experienced that, btw!) they can't have children, either? And how very generous of you to think that the poor shouldn't be looked down on. I know a lot of people who are poor now who used to be middle class and who never in a million years thought it'd happen to them.

And maybe the husband was expected to get better and maybe they didn't know they'd be in such a situation.

[Columbia]

11. Of course they have a right to have kids

As everybody does. That doesn't mean I think it is responsible of them to. I wouldn't dream of having so many kids if I wasn't able to support them.

[liberalhistorian]

12. It's always so much

easier to be an armchair quarterback when you've never had to play in the game, isn't it?

[Columbia]

13. Everybody plays the game

And make their choices. Would you have chosen to have four additional kids if you had severely limited income? I'm sure most of the people on this board would not.

[RBHam]

16. You're right

As soon as a family shrinks to a certain income level, we should sterilize BOTH parents (everybody knows poor people are notoriously permiscuous, and we must use steriliztion because Birth Control and Abortions are affronts to God and Country and are sure to weaken our moral foundation - ).

Call it compassionate conservatism in action. if the poor stop having children, maybe we'll stop having poor people!

[Columbia]

17. Strawman

Obviously not.

[RBHam]

24. I'm being facetious

This is why its so important to promote planned parenthood, and educate teen agers about life style choices. Sex education and birth control options have been proven in endless studies to reduce unwanted pregnancies and improve quality of life.

[Columbia]

34. Facetiousness does not help an argument

Logic and reason like this post do and I support your conclusions here wholeheartedly.

[tkmorris]

23. You have no idea

what the circumstances were. Perhaps the injury which occured when they had the one child didn't manifest itself in such a way to destroy their income potential until years later. Perhaps they had other income which dried up for a different reason. Perhaps any number of things.

You, however, jump straight on the fact that they had children and start layimg blame. You have NO IDEA what these peoples circumstances were except what was written in the letter. Go ahead and judge them though if it makes you feel superior.

[Enjolras]

18. Legal right, maybe. Moral right, definitely not!

Sorry Liberlalhistorian, but having children is neither a constitutionally protected right nor a congresionally mandated requirement. They're a luxury item, like a Carribean vacation or a new car. If you want and can afford them, great. Otherwise, they're one of the many things you're going to have to live without. It's just a matter of responsibility. Ironically, you'd be surprised how much you're starting to sound like Pat Buchanan.

If they were born when things were much better and they had no reason to believe that would change, then maybe that's different. But I'm sure you're aware that isn't usually what happens.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

83. I don`t agree

Children is certainly not a luxury item, because trying to procreate are one of the prime motivations for human behavior. For living being the first priority is to survive, the second is to spread your genome to as many offspring as possible.

Also, having kids may be a survival strategy for poor people, because having many kids will enhance their chance of survival in the long run. Anyone having no kids have little chance of survival if something should happen when they are fifty years old for example.

[lcordero]

19. speaking as somebody that came from a single parent family

1. those people don't have a right to doom a child to life-long poverty.

2. the cost of something should be weighed against current costs, future costs, and worst possible scenarios.

I'm almost 30 years old. I've weighed my options. I won't be having children because I see no possible way of being able to provide for them in a manner that I see fit.

[Columbia]

20. Finally!

Some fellow voices of reason!

[Enjolras]

32. Ditto, Cordero!

I've done the same, for the same reason. Buchanan can kiss my ass.

[terrisel]

14. Raising good citizens takes more than money.

Money is just one factor in what it takes to raise a child. People who have what it takes to be good and committed parents should consider having more than one. We need good citizens more than we need rich ones.

People who know they don't have what it takes, even if they are rich, should consider having none and should not be stigmatized for their choice.

[Columbia]

15. Quite right n/t

[RBHam]

29. It takes a village

The Right Wingers just can't STAND Hillary - because she's absolutely right on the nail with that maxim. The nuclear, isolated family is a rather new construct that has developed since the Industrial Revolution. And with it, have come problems that we're just now coming to terms with. The concept of community responsibility is a tried and true function - we have to try and merge this idea with our modern lifestyles and technology. Tough one, though. What with so many right wing religious types determined to fit their square pegs into round holes.

[liberalhistorian]

44. Exactly, thank you!

I know plenty of well-off parents whose children aren't getting any love or attention from them, and who are totally fucked up because of it. Oh, sure, they have all the things they want, but they're just THINGS. And I know plenty of parents who aren't so well-off at all, who've raised happy, well-adjusted children who understand that THINGS don't make a life and who understand the really important things in life and who have far more of what you could call integrity and character than those from more well-off families.

This whole notion that parents with money are automatically better parents and better for kids than those without, and that kids are better off with them than parents without a whole lot of money is just sickening.

[bread_and_roses]

21. The idea that having children should be predicated

upon a certain level of income seems peculiar to the West. I understand you saying this because it has become the common language in this country, you may have never been presented with the notion that there may be something fundamentally wrong with this view.

Think about this: in the US, a minimum wage job will not take a mother with one child above the poverty level. Two parents with minimum wage jobs cannot provide a "self-sufficiency" standard of living for one child. Are none of these people to have children?

[liberalhistorian]

49. I'm sickened by the very idea

of income being the determining factor in whether or not people should have kids. Just because you have money doesn't mean you're not a total asshole who'll royally screw up your kids. And just because you don't have a lot of money doesn't mean you're automatically going to be a bad parent.

Along with everything else those without much money have to deal with, why don't we just sterilize anyone not making more than, say, $20,000 a year or so? There, that ought to take care of the problem!:puke:

[bread_and_roses]

90. I too find it abhorent

which I thought was plain in my post. But I can hardly blame young people for thinking this way when it is all they have ever heard.

We are not a culture that puts caring for children at the top of either our social policy for families or for communities - witness Welfare "reform."

And as I indicated, the grim laugha part is that our minimum wage won't even allow a family to raise one child...yet we hear people saying that no one who cannot "afford" a child should have one!

[catzies]

26. Welcome to DU.

But I have to ask you, is that not also part of being pro-choice? I think it is, and I am pro-choice. ALL choices.

Have a nice day.

[Columbia]

27. Pro-rights

People should be free to make choices without government involvement. How those choices affect them is their responsibility and it is my opinion that it is irresponsible to have children when one cannot support them - financially or otherwise. Whether this is achieved through Planned Parenthood or abstinence or whatever is up to said individual.

[MissB]

28. How do you propose to regulate this?

You're apparently pro-choice. Therefore, parents should be able to terminate pregnancies if they feel they are not financially secure enough.

How do you suggest impressing upon the American people that it is "irresponsible to have children when one cannot support them"?

Do you have a solution to this problem, or are you just bullshitting us?

[Columbia]

30. Regulation?

Who said anything about regulation? Isn't that what Planned Parenthood is for? The choices are out there and people are free to make them.

[MissB]

38. That's just it

Without regulation, people aren't going to stop having children just because they cannot afford them. There are cultural issues here that cannot be solved by just saying "stop having children- you cannot afford them".

So what is your solution, exactly? Or do you have any?

[Columbia]

41. The solution

Is to have an economy healthy enough so families do not have to make the choice to not have children. And this starts by eliminating such wasteful government intrusions like the war on drugs and the war on terror. And this starts by having a Democrat in the White House. Never should there be regulations regarding personal freedoms and lifestyles like having children.

[MissB]

52. Just so I understand you correctly,

What you are saying is that despite one's economic status, it is okay to have children.

It's either that, or you're still suggesting that only those who can afford it should have children. Bad economy = less children. Poor = consider not having children.

I'm still trying to decide which it is.

[Columbia]

53. Of course it's ok.

No one should have the right to determine whether a family should have children or not. But one must make the bed one lies in. I intend to be as financially stable as possible before having children. This includes having a stable job, savings, insurance, etc. Since I do not have all those things at this time, I do not plan on having children in the near future. As mentioned before, situations do change, and those problems must be tackled as they come and hopefully with enough pre-planning they can be avoided as much as possible. My children deserve the best life I can give them.

[MissB]

56. May you still be able to create children when you feel it's affordable

Hey, I'm a mom of two. I've done things "right" (looking through those glasses you're wearing). I went to college and earned my technical degree. I waited and married. We live in the nicest part of town. I had my kids in my late 20's, early 30's.

Which is great. I live a charmed life.

Not everyone does. That shouldn't preclude them from having children.

It may not have been true for myself, but it is likely true for a great portion of the population - if you wait until you are financially secure, it may be too late. Our bodies, biologically speaking, are more likely to produce children at an age when we are less likely to be financially secure.

A great economy does not make the poor in our country disappear. They do not suddenly get family-supporting jobs and healthcare. Throughout this thread, you seem to be suggesting that they should not bear children. That is incredibly sad.

[Columbia]

61. There is a difference

Between having no children and having children within your means. This topic was about a family who decided to have four children in addition to the one they already had after tragic circumstances altered their income level. I'm sure you and most people would decide that perhaps that would not be the best time to have four more children. If someone wants a child then that is their choice, but it is my hope that they would consider the welfare of the child before making that choice. Isn't that what having children is about? I think what is truly incredibly sad is that there are so many children who grow up needy in households that knew they did not have the means to support them.

[MissB]

63. People have children for a variety of reasons

Religion works into some of those choices. It is likely that the more deeply religious folks don't think about the welfare of the children before making the choice to have another child- it is their religious beliefs that dictate their "choice".

Aside from medical care, children are relatively cheap. The first one can be the most expensive. They don't necessarily get incrementally more expensive.

Neither you nor I can know what drove the family in question to have four more children. I just find it incredibly sad that you are unable to find compassion and understanding for a family. Rather, you have suggested throughout this thread that they have made their bed and should lay in it (or is it lie in it?) Perhaps they were making plans all along to improve their lot, but were met with tragedy after tragedy. Perhaps they were quiver-full type of people. At any rate, they will be condemned for their choices.

[Columbia]

65. You misjudge me

It is directly through my compassion that I hope that no family has to ever undergo the same kind of trials that these families suffered. And although one cannot plan for everything, it is my sincere hope that with something as precious as children, one can (as you have) try their best to ensure that they bring their children into a life that has each child going to bed properly clothed, fed, and loved as they deserve.

[put out]

79. Maybe you would entertain a different perspective.

Presented to me and my classmates by the founder of an emergency aid group. We were pretty smug about the lack of effective use of family planning measures among poverty people. He said, in effect:

Imagine you are a poverty person. You are struggling too hard to make it day by day to think very much about long-range planning. That you brought yourself and your family through this last 24 hours without disaster striking is enough for now. So you take to your bed and try not to worry about food, the car, whether the washing machine will hold out for a little while longer, the bills...

And you don't have birth control right there and ready to use. Pills, Depo, Norplant are out of your reach for one reason or another. You could go to the pharmacy and get condoms if you had any money, if you weren't so weary, if you didn't need to conserve the gasoline in the car...

And next to you is a warm person. And you love them. And there is the possibility for a few minutes, or hours, of love and acceptance and joy and comfort to share. For a while, the many cares of the world are not with you. While you are making love, you are equal to the richest person on earth. So you hold tight onto what might be the only positive thing that's going to happen to you, maybe for a long time.

Then, sometimes, pregnancy results.

I don't know if my point is clear, and I can't know this family's reasons for having more children. I hope some views are softened a little.

[patdem]

97. THAT POST MADE ME CRY!...I am sure most pregnancies

are created by that very scene. When poor and cold and hungry who do you turn to for comfort and love?

Very touching and probably more true than anyone who says ...wait...too poor don't have sex? When sex is all they have to relieve the horror that is their lives. :grr:

[liberalhistorian]

100. I have personally experienced that scenario,

and that is a very accurate description. When you're poor, day-to-day life is a constant struggle, just to get through the day is a minor miracle and you're so emotionally exhausted from it. Long-term planning and thinking just doesn't exist, because you're too busy trying to survive each day.

[drfemoe]

75. Sad children in needy household

About half of the democratic party presidential candidates grew up in what you call a 'needy household'. I doubt you could convince their parents that they were irresponsible or made the wrong decision when they had that child.

[liberalhistorian]

99. EXACTLY!

Remember that Bill Clinton himself was born into what we would consider a "needy" family, his father was killed in a car accident a few months before he was born and his mother didn't have any money. Yet he was very close to his mother.

[liberalhistorian]

47. And what about the

many wingnut areas where Planned Parenthood and similar groups don't even exist? What about the millions of teens and others who are never given the information necessary to make those "choices" they're apparently so free to make? One can only freely make choices if one has the information necessary to make them. Just because YOU have the right information doesn't mean everyone else will. And the wingnuts are doing their damnest to keep that information from teens and young adults.

[liberalhistorian]

46. And what about people who are in a good, secure

situation and who have kids, having no reason to believe that things will change. And then comes a severe injury or illness, or a job loss, or any of a number of similar difficulties. Then what? Are they then to give up the kids because they're no longer in the same financial situation? NO ONE is in a secure financial situation, when you get right down to it. Shit happens, and a lot of the time people have no control over what shit happens or when.

[Columbia]

50. Choices

You are right, circumstances do change. But that doesn't mean parents should disregard deficiencies in their ability to support children.

I'm unclear about what you mean about information to make choices. If someone believes they can't support children at the time, then they make the choice not to.

[drdigi420]

76. o man, you are just lucky

that the new rules prevent me from expressing my opinion of your post

[Fovea]

77. Irresponsible, possibly

Or perhaps they could support them before they themselves became disabled, which in America is the fastest route to poverty.

'No man is an island unto himself' regardless of what Rush, Neil, or NewsMax tells you.

[rbnyc]

85. I have mixed feelings about your post.

On one hand, as someone who earns a relatively low income and is trying to become a mom, I resent that anyone would expect me to wait until make it to a certain income bracket before I have a child.

On the other hand, I do think that I make enough to support a child if I live frugally. I also have a stable family and a lot of support.

And, I actually think it's irresponsible for anyone to have 5 kids no matter how much or little money they have. There are too many people on the planet, and tons of children who are already here and need parents.

I recognize the fact that my desire to have a child who is genetically related to me is selfish. I'm fine with that. However, if we do decide to have a second child, we will adopt.

EDIT: typo

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

86. The population problem

For one, we in the rich world don`t have a problem with to many kids being born, we have a problem with too few kids being born! Many european and eastern countries are threatended by ecnomic collapse due to aging and soon falling populations.

Here in Scandinavia we have generous social programs for poor people with kids, and guess what, we have fewer teenage pregnancies and fewer child births than the US! Helping poor people does not make them "breed like rats"!

[BringEmOn]

95. Bah! Humbug!

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Better they die and decrease the surplus population."

But don't you think it is a little irresponsible of the author of the first letter to have 5 children if they are not financially able to support them?


"Compassionate conservatism" makes me want to puke. Are you more concerned for the welfare of the children, or are you more concerned that they may be eating up your tax dollars? It's not even a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare being gobbled up at the government money trough (see Halliburton, Bechtel, airline industry, et al). Money isn't the best indicator of probability of raising children who become productive, law abiding citizens. For example, George and Barbara Bush have all the money in the world and look at what they've spawned!

[Kanary]

96. Sometimes there's just nothing more to be said

"Money isn't the best indicator of probability of raising children
who become productive, law abiding citizens. For example, George and Barbara Bush have all the money
in the world and look at what they've spawned!"

BWAHHAAHAHAHA!

Sometimes the truth can even be hilarious.

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Although my monitor now has to be cleaned. :)

Kanary

[liberalhistorian]

101. LOL!

PERFECT quote from A Christmas Carol (Scrooge says this to the two gentlemen who are asking him for a contribution to the charitable fund to help the poor at Christmas).

[Madrone]

104. Columbia -

I don't get the knee-jerk reaction you are getting on this thread.

Maybe I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time!), but all I see you saying is that having four additional children after finding yourself in dire straights ain't the smartest choice someone could make. From that - you're an elitest, child-hating, uncompassionate fool who wants to forcefully steralize anyone making under XXX amount of dollars. WTF??

I guess I'm going to have to don my flame resistant suit, because although I wasn't going to post on this thread initially, I'll not let you suffer this bullshit alone. Fact is, I had the same immediate thought you did regarding that story. That doesn't mean I look down on that family, or that I would deny their family aid, or wish Bush's wet dream of leaving poor people to starve in the gutters upon them.

We have ALL made poor choices in our lives, and I've certainly made more than my fair share. Pointing out that continuing to have children in a situation like the one posted above isn't a great choice shouldn't be cause for a flame-fest.

One of my good friends is someone who continues to make a lot of poor choices in her life. She got pregnant with her second child a little over 2 years ago while married to a guy in prison (she had a prison wedding) by some other guy she had staying with her. She had to do a lot of quick thinking on that one, as in MI if you are married your husband is automatically on the birth certificate. She had a hurried divorce. She was already struggling with taking care of her first born, and simply added to her troubles by not being careful and ending up with another kid. 2 weeks after she found out she was pregnant the father of kid #2 HE went to prison. She struggled all through the pregnancy, barely making it, and gave birth to a daughter. Then she went and had her SECOND prison wedding. The guy got out of prison when their daughter was a year and a half old. She was diagnosed with bi-polar. While previously a WONDERFUL parent she started neglecting her kids (not in a CPS way - just obvious she didn't have much time or energy for them). She had screaming, cursing, nasty fights with the current husband, repeatedly, and in front of the kids. He wouldn't get a job. She worked part time delivering pizzas. She got pregnant AGAIN. She had the pill, but wasn't taking it like she should. POOR CHOICES. And yes, irresponsible. Damn irresponsible! Does that mean I love her any less? NO. I support her, I love her, I love her kids. I'd do ANYTHING to help them. She will always be my friend, and I will ALWAYS stand by her 100%. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything she does - and I can and will call it like I see it AND love her and support her.

My friend has been getting state aid since she was pregnant with her first son. (I met her when she was 3 months pregnant with him.) I do not resent that in the least. She's always worked, and worked hard. She wants to move up - but she keeps digging her hole deeper. I won't turn my back on her, but I also will not tell her that I think she's doing everything RIGHT. She's not.

I guess the point of that story is to say it IS possible to deem someones actions irresponsible without lacking compassion about their plight or beating them over the head with a hammer of judgement.

[Columbia]

105. Thank you Proud

I had all but abandoned this thread due to some of the really heated responses I had received. To be honest, I only just started posting on DU the last couple days and was pretty disheartened at this kind of reception. You are correct in that people are reading far more into what I write than is there. To many of them, I seem to be a Margaret Sanger reincarnate, which couldn't be the further from the truth. I was actually contemplating leaving DU completely, but your post reaffirmed to me that good sensible people do exist on this board so, thank you for that.

Best wishes to your friend, and to all those in the world who are not in the best of circumstances.

[liberalhistorian]

4. Great letters. especially the first

one. It amazes me that someone who's gone through something like that, getting severly injured by a drunk driver, has to spend the rest of their lives being marginalized and discriminated against because they consequently don't have enough money. And the criminalization of the poor is a never-ending source of total amazement to me. I've experienced that attitude myself first-hand during a very dark period in my life, and I don't know how people deal with it all the time.

[terrisel]

22. Food Stamps are for the Benefit of Corporations.

The Food Stamp "issue" is just a Republican Party Propaganda Hot Button issue.

Whenever it is raised, the appropriate response is: Food stamps are for the benefit of corporate farmers and large corporate manufacturers of food products.
Please tell Bush and the Republican congress to end food subsidy programs for corporate farms. Then food prices will go down for all of us and poor people won't get the stamps (and won't need them).

History: In the 1990s Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries said they would end the food stamp program if they won. They won and they didn't end it. The companies financing their campaign wouldn't let them.

[madfloridian]

33. I am so ashamed of the reactions to this thread.

What the hell is going on in this country that there is such hatred. I have seen it here in our area in attitudes. I am ashamed of our country and the right wing radio and the media that lies.

I hold out no hope for us.

I meant this thread as a hopeful one, that those on the right with their righteous Pharisaic noses in the air were finally getting to people.

I give up. Columbia, you win.

I detest righteous people who present the I am superior to you argument.

[madfloridian]

36. I apologize for posting it and leaving an opening for the hatred.

I alerted, but I guess it is ok for people to decide who and who can't have families.

What hatred.

[Columbia]

37. There is no hatred.

And no one advocating government regulation of who can and cannot have families. Please do not distort my comments in such fashion. The only hatred here is hatred of difference of opinion.

No one has offered an answer to my question of if they would have done the same thing as the family indicated - namely having four additional children knowing they have limited means to support them.

[MissB]

39. But you have proposed no solutions, Columbia

Which is why I have asked you again and again for them.

It is not as easy as you think - you cannot tell a population to stop having children because they cannot afford them.

I'm poking at you for your solution, because I smell a freeper.

[Columbia]

42. Scroll up n/t

[madfloridian]

40. I really can only make one response.

Once Rush Limbaugh got the word from WH to start putting down the needy. He did, too. He started a campaign against those who were unemployed and those who needed food stamps.

His premise was so cruel:
"The needy are too fat, they eat too much."

You sound so condescending, and I know it does no good to argue with anyone who sounds that way.

Think about what I wrote, the two are connected.

[BiggJawn]

68. Don't apologize.

I alerted too.
This crap about "Children should only be had by those who can afford them" stinks to high heaven of Eugenics.

Oh, yeah, Eugenics....Along with the mentally deficient and physically challenged, they put the Poor in that same group.

[Columbia]

69. Alert all you want

And think what you may, but anything close to eugenics is nowhere to be found in this thread.

[lcordero]

48. ashamed?

I have really vivid memories of life as a 12 year old. I remember being ridiculed for my clothes and footwear at school. After one of those days of being ridiculed my mom(MY ONLY PARENT) joked about having another child. I told her that if she had another one that I would leave the house and that I would never speak to her again.

btw...the household was composed of my younger brother, my mother, and I. This was on a $14,000 income in NYC.

[madfloridian]

51. I am glad I am not your mother.

How cold-hearted you sound. Ashamed of your mother.

[liberalhistorian]

57. Ditto,

I'm sure glad I'm not, either! Apparently, he has no understanding of how hard it was for his mother as well, he's only thinking about himself.

[Columbia]

59. Edited

Because Cordero personally responded.

[lcordero]

58. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ashamed of my mother.

She put my brother and I first on her list of priorities like any good mother would.

Logic dictates to stop digging when one is in a hole.

I have a second cousin that I went to visit in the last few days. She has three children(17, 16, 10) from two different fathers. Neither of the fathers are reliable. The 17 year old child has had to go to school from 7AM to 3PM and to work from 4PM to 10PM for the last three years. The 16 year old(who is stuck in special Ed.) has to constantly mind the 10 year old who has extreme asthma.

I, myself, would prefer not to be born rather than have to face need.

[madfloridian]

62. Actually, you just dug the hole deeper.

As I said, I am glad I am not your mother. I would hate my kids not appreciating me or not being proud of me.

[lcordero]

64. I'm about to reach China right now then.

"Love" does not put food on the table, pay the bills, put a roof over a head, or "conquer all".

"Love" does not mean forgiving people for willful chronic bad judgment, that designation belongs to stupidity.

Somebody that is willing to break my back is definitely somebody that does not love me.

[liberalhistorian]

66. How sad that you put material

things before love and caring. I'd rather have loving, poor parents than rich, unloving, uncaring ones. Rich kids who are shown no love or attention (and there are more than enough of them, their parents think showering them with "things" makes up for the time, love, and attention they don't give them) end up royally fucked up. Whereas I've known kids from poorer households who WERE given plenty of love and attention and who turned out so much better. LOVE is the most important thing to give a child, and if you put things over love, then I'm glad I'm not your child.

[lcordero]

67. "love and caring"????

My "dad"(or for lack of a better term, "sperm donor") is over 70 years old, is still not a grandfather and will not be a grandfather by my doing. I haven't spoken to him in over 14 years. It is better that I not speak to him. Like my mother's father, I will not forgive somebody until they can no longer do me any harm...and that means AFTER somebody is in the grave.

I've never been "loving", "caring", "patient", or "forgiving" because I can't afford to be.

[liberalhistorian]

55. Well, I'm a never-married single

mother with a nearly thirteen-year-old son, I'm a college graduate who makes $26,000 a year, with only sporadic child support. We've lived with my parents since he was born because it's best for him in terms of emotional security. We're very close, he loves me dearly and is very affectionate and loving with me. There are many kids he knows who have far more material things and better clothes, etc., etc., but no real relationship with their parents, when they do see them. My son has said he'd rather have me than anything else in the world, even designer clothes and shoes. THAT, my friend, is what is really important. And how sad that you don't realize just how much your mother struggled for you and how hard it was for her.

[lcordero]

70. she struggled more than you will ever realize

Every single day that she went to work, she had to worry whether I would kill my brother, that he would kill me, or that my brother and/or I would become a statistic on a New York City street.

[drfemoe]

78. I remember being ridiculed for my clothes and footwear at school

Can you possibly see this as the root issue of your suffering?

Dealing with the scorn faced by those in the same economic situation you found yourself in is the real message of this post. Other 'poor' people (defined by statistics instituted by the 'govt') are sick of being treated like non-citizens. They are sick and tired of their children being ridiculed for not having the same BRANDS as those who claim 'affluence'. If the truth were known, it is quite possible those new sneakers are part of the family deficit, hiding a real 'poor' person with a big line of credit.

madfloridian is right about this. It's a societal issue of grave magnitude, driven imo by corps who sell our kids on the idea that without the right *BRAND*, one is a POS.

[liberalhistorian]

102. And, as a single mother myself,

I know how hard she must have worked, harder than you probably realized, and how difficult it must have been for her not only to struggle to make ends meet, but knowing how unhappy you were and was likely horribly frustrated over her inability to do anything about it.

And what I meant in my other post was that children are better off growing up in a loving household without much money than a palace with tons of things and no love and attention. I've personally witnessed that over and over again.

[patdem]

98. You better fucking not give up...or give in...you are RIGHT

the poor are growing in this country..and the number of children they choose to have has nothing to do with it....it is the bush* admin's policy to enrich the rich that is creating poverty..

NEVER GIVE UP AND NEVER GIVE IN!

[madfloridian]

45. This is the future of our country. This is Gingrich in motion.

These answers show a much larger problem occurring in our country.

These answers show me that the Medicare bill truly is the end of care and respect for our seniors, Social Security will be next.

The end of all social programs by putting the government in huge deficit...it has arrived. No Medicaid, no catastrophic care for those who are disabled, no nothing.

And there is any army of young people and older as well, raised in the tradition of lack of compassion......now it is all in place.

[Mikimouse]

54. Compassion, like ethics, cannot be learned...

it is something that develops over time, and with experience. Even then, the experience is hollow if the capacity to survive in less than ideal circumstances is not present. May we all hope that incidents as those described in the first letter never befall those who cannot understand them, as they won't survive the vitriol thrown their way.

[Ksec]

60. powerful stuff, those letters

Its about time we heard from the biggest segment of US population, (and growing in leaps and bounds under Bushs economy) If the poor of this country would only wake up and vote we could ditch the repubs without even an effort

Repubs need an ignorant and uninformed poor class. A poor man voting for any Repub is cutting his own throat.

This is what really pisses me off about alot of southern poor people. Where do they get that voting Repub is helping them? How ignorant.

[Kanary]

71. "If the poor of this country would only wake up and vote"

It's very hard to express just how much a statement like this not only stings, but once again blames the victims.

REPEATEDLY on this forum, when people keep talking about registering voters, getting out the vote, getting poor people to vote, I keep saying, over and over, "What are you offering them?" "What are they supposed to vote *FOR*?" Where is *any* candidate bothering to "court" the poor folx? I have asked candidate supporters what their candidate is offering poor people, what their candidate is going to do to change the situation of poor people, and I've gotten dismissed, I've been told "Oh, you're one of those one issue voters", I've been told to "go ahead and vote for Bush", etc. I've been dismissed, put down, and crapped on. To the point where I don't even make the effort to talk about it anymore. Why in the world would anyone who is poor even bother anymore? They *KNOW* they don't count.

I could point to a bunch of examples, but take one that was recently posted, about the top issues to push for the coming election. NOWHERE on that list was poverty issues. It's not important. It's seen as a liability. Yet, you can sit back and condemn people because they don't vote??? Where were you when all the discussions take place that leave poor people out of the equations? If you think the votes of poor people are important, and you want to see them get registered and vote for the DEms, what are you doing to see to it that poverty issues are important in this election?

IN short, why would *anyone* bother to vote when none of the issues has any connection to them?

Do you *Really* believe calling people "ignorant" is going to inspire them to register and go to the poles?

Before you flip back some angry retort, put yourself in their shoes, and think about it.

Kanary

[tkmorris]

72. Outstanding.

I agree completely.

We need to do two things as a party. Offer the poor hope, through our platform. Then we have to get that message out there, make them believe we mean it and it isn't just more empty promises.

The American public feels a disconnect from the political process. A significant number (most?) do not believe it makes one heck of a lot of difference which party is in power. That effect is especially prominent amongst the poor. Changing that will take a lot of effort and we damn well better be sincere or we will lose them entirely.

[Kanary]

73. OMG! Somebody actually heard me?

I've been talking mostly to a wall here. I almost didn't post at all, because it gets *REALLY* tiring being ignored. Or put down.

I guess I just finally don't care anymore.

So, thanks for bothering to read, and to comment. You've lifted my spirits.

I'm sure there are plenty who can't wait to come along and dash 'em again.

Thanks!

Kanary

[bread_and_roses]

89. I agree 100%

every day as I read this forum, and think about the candidates who might get the nomination, I wonder how I will be able to go out to the people I register/voter educate/ect., and say: THIS President will address YOUR issues. It makes me furious.

[Kanary]

74. Another thread on poverty sinks into oblivion

Is that it?

Nothing more to be said?

Nothing to be done?

Handwringing and wrangling ends it?

Kanary, just not getting it

[Mikimouse]

82. Still here, still waiting...

I am certain that there is still more venom to use on the poor. I am simply waiting for one of the venomous to read my last post and respond to it. I meant every word, and am not sorry that I posted it. We're such good, compassionate, Christian society (sarcasm intended and underlined-twice!):puke:

[Kanary]

84. We can wait for venom

Or we can start to strategize, to plan some actions to counter the cuts to the safety net.

Kanary

[Mikimouse]

91. I am cynical enough to think that...

those of us who are not sensitive to the realities of life need to serve some time on the 'other side'. I am not wishing ill on anyone, but the street is a great educator. I came, originally, from a middle class background. My parents divorced when I was 14, and my mother and I moved to Boston. She worked like a dog, but made little money, and so I went to work full time when I was 16. The ultimate irony was that since I was male, young, and interested in science, I got a job that paid $4.00/hr, while my mom made a lousy $2.35/hr. She let me know early that if I had plans to go to college, that I would have to pay my own way; not that she didn't want to help, but she had no means to do so. I worked full time all the way through college and in no way regret it. Mother would have been proud of me now that I am a hair away from my Ph.D. Had I stayed with my father, who was abusive, I would have never experienced the side of life that taught me the most important lessons. Later in life, I was homeless for a stretch, with no family 'safety net'. Thank goodness that my mother never saw that art of my life. Fortunately, I made it through that period and got back on track, but it was touch and go for a while. It is not my place to ever judge people; they are quite capable of judging themselves. To imagine that poor people do not think about or question their decisions is ludicrous, and contributes to a stereotype that is not only unfair, but also narrow minded. Should poor people simply stay in their 'place', and stop doing the things that every human does? Or should they, as well as everyone else, be embraced for who they are, and not what they own (or don't own)? (soapbox off)

[Kanary]

93. I'm not getting your point

In relation to what I said.

or, maybe you weren't even replying to me, but just hit the "reply" button on my post?

Kanary

[Mikimouse]

94. Sorry about that, I should probably have been more precise...

When you posted, "Or we can start to strategize, to plan some actions to counter the cuts to the safety net.", I could not think of any effective and appropriate way that we could reinforce the safety net, as long as some liberals and progressives did not understand the nature of poverty and the stigma that we ourselves attach to it. I, for one, use the strategy of educating my students through examples and research papers. That works to an extent, but, of course, it affects society neither broadly nor quickly. I am always open to suggestions (just as long as they don't contain expletives), and would be very comfortable with working on a variety of strategies to counter the cuts in the safety net.

[put out]

87. I'm with you, if it matters.

I think some of the most venomous posters, with regards to poor people having families, might lack the experience to see things from any viewpoint but their own. Or maybe some folks are just a little stunted that way, and always will be. That sort of self-righteous stuff gets under my skin in a hurry.

I'm waiting for a response, too. Care to make a bet?

Spoken as a child of limited means, very limited. No poverty of spirit or good values, though. Thanks, mom and dad.

[Mikimouse]

92. Of course it matters...

we ALL matter. The material things of life, and the accumulation of same, mean nothing in the greater scheme of things. We are so indoctrinated into defining the worth of a human being by a piece of greann tainted paper, that we have lost all perspective. Money is a social construct, worthless in the universal meaning of life. Human life, on the other hand, has meaning, whether it is an economically impoverished life, or a wealthy one.

[RBHam]

80. Taxes...

Until the average voter realizes that BushCo's tax cuts are a shell game designed to turn America into a Dickensian Paradise for the super rich - there will be no change.

An amazing amount of working poor people actually believe the Reich Wing Propaganda and their Corporate Media's spin on tax cuts.

Soon, there WILL be work camps run by "faith based" private corporations - guaranteed. It'll just be another plank of the soon to be entrenched Thocratic Compassionate Conservatism.

If you haven't noticed, Patriot Act II has been signed into law.
This will speed the idea along.

[WildThang]

103. design is working

eom

[wanderingbear]

81. Um..Things have always been ugly for us..

Its never easy being poor.

[marzipanni]

88. No one here is all wrong,

in my husband and my extended families we happen to believe in zero population growth (you replace yourself at most). Each brother or sister who did find a mate has one child, one brother has two. I had my son at almost 44, so didn't feel I had enough energy (or possible healthy ova!) to have another child. Having wanted a child for many years I was unwilling to put myself in the position of working full time and only being able to be with my child at the end of each day and on weekends. I'd rather give up other stuff. We buy most clothes at Goodwill and buy used vehicles. I joke about my boring checkbook record because all the checks seem to be for groceries, utilities, car insurance.
My husband and I have always worked in very small businesses which could not afford health benefits for employees. If people calculated how much they spend on health insurance (if your employer pays, you might not even know until they can no longer afford it and want to pay you less to cover it) and how little you actually need in services (other than in catastrophic situations) I think the system would change.
In this country even the poor are rich compared to most people in the world, but it seems that because some people CANpay for much more than what they need, the rest of us are compelled to try to make it by those standards or not at all. I have heard that most people have $8-10,000. credit card debt. Is this a symptom of the middle class disappearing?...getting poorer, but unwilling to admit and adjust to it, or just really can't make it?