Comments: 3 Score: [-] 62 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
Well, this guy might be an expert in the eyes of conservatives, and I agree with some of what he says (though, obviously his foundation is very right wing, as is the publisher of this article, so hard to believe his numbers are any better than anyone else's numbers).
I do take exception to this, which makes me doubt much of what he says:
"One of the simplest and most important things we could do to reduce child poverty would be to go and communicate to those couples -- all of whom are low-income -- the importance of marriage for their own well-being and for the child’s well-being."
So, assuming he is correct in what he asserts earlier in the article, that these parents only work on average 16 hours a week, he thinks we should counsel them to marry each other, thereby pushing them off the welfare rolls. Not bad on paper, but not helpful to bring the children out of poverty unless he thinks by getting married these people will suddenly develop some magic work ethic.
Why not counsel them to use birth control, or not have kids...oh wait, yeah, conservatives.
Score: [-] 44 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Akstika:
Or counsel them to work? I've always heard that if you work, your chances of being poor will be lower.
Also, the army will take just about anyone these days. Not that they should join if they are morally opposed, just that it is a great way to go from poverty to not.
Score: [-] 12 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Gammerus:
So food stamps, public housing, Medicaid -- all of the $600 billion that we spend assisting poor people (per year) is not counted as income when they go to determine whether a family is poor.
I think if the family needs foodstamps or public housing they are poor.
Score: [-] 12 [+].
< 1 >