[Newsbot]

Title: $3 a day makes big difference for expecting low-income moms: Study | CTV Winnipeg News
Category: Political
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-05-13 09:36:54
Canadian

[andyt]

No, no, no. We should be taking away $3 a day from low income moms to punish them for breeding when poor. The kids will grow up just fine anyway, don't believe the research that says they are much more likely to be a cost to the healthcare and justice system.

[BartSimpson]

Wow! Imagine the benefits of giving them $1,000 a day!!! If $3 a day helps then it makes sense to give them $1,000 a day because that would be 333 times better!!!

[2Cdo]

And once again andy refuses to hold people accountable. If you can't afford kids, wait until your situation improves. Apparently common sense isn't.

[BeaverFever]

Yeah, and people should always obey the speed limit too. And floss every day.

And if only they would pay attention when driving we wouldn't have to waste taxpayer dollars on traffic lights and stop signs. Let's get rid of those too while we're at it, since it just rewards irresponsible drivers.

The point being, regardless of your empty moralizing, some elements of human behavior can't be controlled. Better to reduce the likelihood of children being born into a life of poverty and crime, or who are born unhealthy and require costly health care. We all benefit from that, it's not just about helping the individual in question.

[andyt]

Don't think somebody with such a limited view of people and society will ever get that. It's why I have the sig I do, to try to point out to people that it's actually in their own self interest to support poverty reduction. Seems to be the only way you might get thru to a person like that, appeal to their self interest.

[herbie]

No point giving the poor more money. I have no more store to take it away from them.
See my capitalist, free enterprise side at least is honest!

[bootlegga]

How about instead of giving them money to stay at home, they give them money to help them get an trade/skill so they can contribute to society instead leeching off of it?

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga bootlegga:

How about instead of giving them money to stay at home, they give them money to help them get an trade/skill so they can contribute to society instead leeching off of it?

X2. I'm all for the idea of free education, to an extent. Only certain trades/degrees will be free, based on anticipated demand 5 years down the road for jobs requiring those qualifications.

And you only get one shot. You don't get to keep going to school on the government's dime if you find out you don't like the qualification you first chose.

[BeaverFever]

bootlegga bootlegga:

How about instead of giving them money to stay at home, they give them money to help them get an trade/skill so they can contribute to society instead leeching off of it?

It's not either or situation. Both programs exist and could be improved. Educating is great for the future, but it's not going to feed and shelter you and your unborn baby tonight.

[andyt]

And they're not all latent techies just waiting for help so their talents can be released. Many of them won't have the ability to be trained for very well paying jobs. If the jobs they do get pay poorly, they'll be in the hole with childcare costs.

Thing is, the child benefit, even with only one child under 6 pays 533 a month, even for families earning 30k a year. This program is a huge transfer of wealth and will do a lot to reduce child poverty. Assuming welfare doesn't claw it all back.

[Canadian_Mind]

And this is where I turn into a Darwinist. If you are a healthy person but otherwise have no natural skills or talents and are unable to develop skill and talent through school, you deserve nothing more than a minimum wage job. Back in our cave-dwelling days you would have starved to death or been eaten first. My hard-earned money I got by using both my natural and my developed abilities shouldn't go to subsidizing someone else's lifestyle when they don't have the gumption to develop skills for themselves.

As to women in particular, there is something they can't do that I can't: Make babies. If a woman wants to make it her job to make babies for the next generation, i think that's fantastic. But, in doing so, you can't escape the traditional gender roles. If you want to be a mom, find a man who can support a family on his own, get married or at the least achieve common law, and start making the next generation. Nothing wrong with this plan IMO.

But, if you had an accident, your man can't support a family on his own, or you don't want to subscribe to the gender roles of past generations, then refer to plan A where you develop skills and become gainfully employed.

In the future, we as a country might suffer from population decline. When this time comes, we might need to consider subsidizing motherhood, or even making it a dedicated, paid-for-by-government career path. But until that time comes, I'm not willing to put more money towards single mothers than the bare minimum required to provide basic necessities and put her through school.

[andyt]

Well then Darwin, at least have the courage of your convictions. Get rid of law enforcement so when the children of these women grow up to be criminals, deal with them yourself. When they make demands on the health care system, well, lets get rid of that anti-Darwinian public system. When these wretches become breeding grounds for communicable disease, well let's just band together and shoot them. And for God's sake let's not waste any public education funding on them. In fact eliminate public education all together. (And hope that your parents were rich enough to pay for your unsubsidized higher education, like mine were.) And so on.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Well then Darwin, at least have the courage of your convictions. Get rid of law enforcement so when the children of these women grow up to be criminals, deal with them yourself. When they make demands on the health care system, well, lets get rid of that anti-Darwinian public system. When these wretches become breeding grounds for communicable disease, well let's just band together and shoot them. And for God's sake let's not waste any public education funding on them. In fact eliminate public education all together. (And hope that your parents were rich enough to pay for your unsubsidized higher education, like mine were.) And so on.

Andy, can you please re-read my post? I did say I am for education and I am for providing the basic necessities of life until that education is completed.

[andyt]

Yeah, yeah. Re read your own post - you are punishing the children for what you perceive as the sins of the parents. You can pontificate all you want, but women and men will make children they can't support well enough to raise productive citizens. The op is exactly about providing the basic necessities,

$1:

So then you can start to realize, 'Geez, $3 a day could be the difference between buying milk and some vegetables or not, or paying a bill over the course of the month.’ That's causing you great stress or not."

never mind more than the stark necessities to do more than keep somebody alive.

As I say, fine, but then be prepared to pay for the consequences down the road. Like that motor oil ad "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Or change our society in the ways that I suggested so that these people are not a financial burden on you, never mind an empathetic one.