Industry Minister James Moore Shows his Inner Scrooge

[Muta]

Originally Posted by krynski

Those two groups can be one in the same. I hope you realize that you can't differentiate between them with ease.

Okay, so if you have a problem with your tax dollars going to these people, how about you devise a plan to differentiate the poor-but have kids and poor-but wern't before decided to have kids groups? People who undergo unfortunate circumstances like accidentally having a kid or somehow unfortunate monetary circumstances? You can't differentiate it.

A poor kid is a poor kid. You can't pick and choose which one deserves funding and which one doesn't.

I never said I have a problem with my tax dollars going to supporting kids in need. In fact, I've stated several times I'm IN SUPPORT of such programs. Are you even reading the thread properly?

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Muta

I never said I have a problem with my tax dollars going to supporting kids in need. In fact, I've stated several times I'm IN SUPPORT of such programs. Are you even reading the thread properly?

Yeah I am. You just don't want it to go to parents who don't have money and procreate. You are contradicting yourself then. Read your own words.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, I said I have no sympathy for people who decide to have children when they don't have the adequate resources to support them. I never said I have no sympathy for people who can't afford them.

Big, big difference.

But really... how many people "decide" to have children they can't afford?

Him: We can't afford to have kids
Her: You're right, but let's have them anyway!
Him: Why not!
Both: YAY!

Financial literacy is astonishingly scarce in today's society. People think they can afford things (like kids) that they can't afford. And when it comes to sex, people aren't thinking with their heads (if you know what I mean)

[Muta]

Originally Posted by krynski

Yeah I am. You just don't want it to go to parents who don't have money and procreate. You are contradicting yourself then. Read your own words.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, buddy.

Huh? I've clearly stated two things in this thread.

1) I don't have sympathy for people who DECIDE to have children and don't have the resources to support them properly. Sorry, but I don't. That's extremely cruel to the child or children.

2) I can't control people's breeding habits; no one can. If these children, and families, need help, they need to receive support. It's humane, and the right thing to do regardless of their upbringing. That doesn't mean I have to support their decision to have kids to begin with.

Your flaw is your inability to separate my opinion on procreation from my opinion on the support they should receive in reality. You think I should have mutually exclusive opinions on them, but I'm not really sure why.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Plett25

But really... how many people "decide" to have children they can't afford?

Him: We can't afford to have kids
Her: You're right, but let's have them anyway!
Him: Why not!
Both: YAY!

Financial literacy is astonishingly scarce in today's society. People think they can afford things (like kids) that they can't afford. And when it comes to sex, people aren't thinking with their heads (if you know what I mean)

I agree; financial literacy IS astonishingly scarce these days. That's exactly my point. People don't REALLY think these things through. Many couples have a kid because they want WANT A KID, they want a family... without doing some of the required math behind it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Muta

I agree; financial literacy IS astonishingly scarce these days. That's exactly my point. People don't REALLY think these things through. Many couples have a kid because they want WANT A KID, they want a family... without doing some of the required math behind it.

That's probably the same rough percentage as people who engage in voter fraud.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Muta

Huh? I've clearly stated two things in this thread.

1) I don't have sympathy for people who DECIDE to have children and don't have the resources to support them properly. Sorry, but I don't. That's extremely cruel to the child or children.

2) I can't control people's breeding habits; no one can. If these children, and families, need help, they need to receive support. It's humane, and the right thing to do regardless of their upbringing. That doesn't mean I have to support their decision to have kids to begin with.

Your flaw is your inability to separate my opinion on procreation from my opinion on the support they should receive in reality. You think I should have mutually exclusive opinions on them, but I'm not really sure why.

Your flaw is that you're all over the map. Your first post in this thread was expressing your agreement with the following statement:

Having a child is a personal choice. Why should I, or you, or anyone else, be obligated to expend our own funds and efforts to care for someone that we had no choice in creating?

I'm not sure how you reconcile the bolded with that. If you find that no one seems to understand your point, there's probably a reason and it's not everyone else's reading comprehension.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Your flaw is that you're all over the map. Your first post in this thread was expressing your agreement with the following statement:

I'm not sure how you reconcile the bolded with that. If you find that no one seems to understand your point, there's probably a reason and it's not everyone else's reading comprehension.

Here's the confusion - I agreed that someone's kid isn't the responsibility of someone else. That's all I agreed to in that post. If that wasn't evident, it should have become so in all subsequent posts. If that wasn't, I apologize - it should have been.

The difference between the post I originally quoted and the poster himself is that I don't have sympathy for people who make dumb life decisions that negatively affect a child but, unlike him, I am still prepared to pay my taxes to support child programs because the kid is here regardless, and needs adequate support.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's probably the same rough percentage as people who engage in voter fraud.

Hmm. Agree to disagree then. No worries.

[burn_baby_burn]

Like was stated earlier, I don't think the problem is that some parents can't afford food. Its that they chose to spend it on other things, like cigarrettes, booze, drugs, gambling, eating out to much, or luxury items. Or, like was also stated, lazy parents who basically let their kids fend for themselves for lunch at school.

I really feel for the kids in these situations. However, when you see poor people on TV from third world countries. They are supper skinny and look to actually be starving. When I see poor people from North America, they generally seem to be obiese.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but government assistance should be enough to feed, cloth, and shelter a family. Like somebody else mentioned, maybe food stamps would be a better idea. Then the families would have to use them on food, instead of taking the welfare check to the bar or the casino.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Like was stated earlier, I don't think the problem is that some parents can't afford food. Its that they chose to spend it on other things, like cigarrettes, booze, drugs, gambling, eating out to much, or luxury items. Or, like was also stated, lazy parents who basically let their kids fend for themselves for lunch at school.

Except you're completely ignoring that much of these "choices" are steeped in mental illness and addiction.

I really feel for the kids in these situations. However, when you see poor people on TV from third world countries. They are supper skinny and look to actually be starving. When I see poor people from North America, they generally seem to be obiese.

This is a terribly flawed and completely anecdotal argument. The reason poor people are fat is because part of being poor is the inability to afford proper nutrition.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

When I saw a discussion of James's quote on another forum, someone posted something pretty humorous. The party most linked with small-c conservative christian values seems act more like Scrooge than Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus saying "Is it my job to feed the poor children?!? I don't think so!!"

There's a meme going around that says "Put Christ back in Christmas? Pfft, how about put Christ back in Christians!" I think I have to agree.

I'm not religious, but I do believe in the whole 'brother's keeper' philosophy.

[Ryan Coke]

The problem I have with this data and the 'fight against child poverty' is what is considered child poverty. People on here are talking about not eating and living on the street, what most of us would consider real poverty. The definition for these stats is;

"Child Poverty
The proportion of children 17 years and under living in households where disposable income is less than half of the median in a given country."

So in a rich country like ours, the median is high and so many that are considered poor are relatively well off. And no matter how much they have, there will always be a substantial number of people considered to be in statistical poverty.

So we actually do take very good care of our collective children, even though the statistics published make it appear to be much worse than it is. Can we do better? Always, there will be some that slip through cracks. But it isn't the simplistic left wing solution of more money..higher taxes....otherwise you don't care about people.

Spoken as someone who grew up very solidly below the poverty line.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Like was stated earlier, I don't think the problem is that some parents can't afford food. Its that they chose to spend it on other things, like cigarrettes, booze, drugs, gambling, eating out to much, or luxury items. Or, like was also stated, lazy parents who basically let their kids fend for themselves for lunch at school.

Is this actually true? Like is there something to back it up, or is it just your opinion?

Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but the few people I've ever known who live in what would be considered poverty weren't like this at all. They were (mostly) young single mothers who worked crappy jobs and did what they could to make ends meet. They certainly weren't smoking and drinking and gambling away what little money they did have.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is this actually true? Like is there something to back it up, or is it just your opinion?

Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but the few people I've ever known who live in what would be considered poverty weren't like this at all. They were (mostly) young single mothers who worked crappy jobs and did what they could to make ends meet. They certainly weren't smoking and drinking and gambling away what little money they did have.

The reason is poor people are poor because they mismanage their money by gambling and boozing it all away. Rich people are rich because they're intelligent, organized, and great at life stuff.

That's the myth, anyway.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The problem I have with this data and the 'fight against child poverty' is what is considered child poverty. People on here are talking about not eating and living on the street, what most of us would consider real poverty. The definition for these stats is;

"Child Poverty
The proportion of children 17 years and under living in households where disposable income is less than half of the median in a given country."

So in a rich country like ours, the median is high and so many that are considered poor are relatively well off. And no matter how much they have, there will always be a substantial number of people considered to be in statistical poverty.

So we actually do take very good care of our collective children, even though the statistics published make it appear to be much worse than it is. Can we do better? Always, there will be some that slip through cracks. But it isn't the simplistic left wing solution of more money..higher taxes....otherwise you don't care about people.

Spoken as someone who grew up very solidly below the poverty line.

Is that really the definition of poverty? Because that is a terrible measure. That accurately measures wealth inequality but not poverty. I don't mean to doubt you but do you have a link to where that definition is being used as poverty?

[Ryan Coke]

GGG, good point I didn't give the link. It was from this post earlier in the thread. Click the link, it is on the right hand side. There is also a brief discussion of an alternate form of statistically measuring poverty, but is similarly impaired IMO.

That is what gets me, when the news headline is about the child poverty rate is so high, and we arent doing enough to get it down. Everyone considered in poverty could be 20% better off than 2 years ago, but if the median of disposable income for Canada had also gone up 20% then the percentage of childhood poverty wouldn't change.

Same thing when comparing us to other countries. Another country may just have a lower median, resulting in fewer people in poverty, even if their actual standard of living was substantially worse.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think you would be surprised. As friend of ours volunteers at our kids school. They have a breakfast/lunch program, and it is beyond capacity.

Sadly, this is a common situation.



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/de...d-poverty.aspx

[Ryan Coke]

BTW, what I quoted as the definition was an actual copy and paste from that conference board page.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The problem I have with this data and the 'fight against child poverty' is what is considered child poverty. People on here are talking about not eating and living on the street, what most of us would consider real poverty. The definition for these stats is;

"Child Poverty
The proportion of children 17 years and under living in households where disposable income is less than half of the median in a given country."

So in a rich country like ours, the median is high and so many that are considered poor are relatively well off. And no matter how much they have, there will always be a substantial number of people considered to be in statistical poverty.

So we actually do take very good care of our collective children, even though the statistics published make it appear to be much worse than it is. Can we do better? Always, there will be some that slip through cracks. But it isn't the simplistic left wing solution of more money..higher taxes....otherwise you don't care about people.

Spoken as someone who grew up very solidly below the poverty line.

Actually, it costs much less, by a large degree, to make sure these kids get a proper start in life and are not screwed up by the choices their parents make. For example, a High School drop out in Alberta costs the government $8000 more in health care costs than one who made it through grade 12, and on average $26,000 a year due to crime related costs.

This is simple math. Even if you put $2000 a year into making sure each individual kid gets fed right, gets into community programs, or otherwise gets the stuff they need to make their life work, in their 12 years of public school, you would break even by the time they hit 24 in health care costs alone. That's not counting the crime impact, or the simple fact that people who get more education earn more, and pay more taxes.

So, if you spent money to improve all these kids chances of succeeding and being able to finish school, you save money. But it isn't the simplistic (extreme) right wing solution of less money..lower taxes.. because it makes it looks like you actually care about people.

Even if you don't give a rat's ass about those snot nosed kids produced by the birth control impaired rejects of society, if you ignore them and allow them to fall through the cracks, it will cost YOU more money in the future.

[Ryan Coke]

I have no problem at all with your premise.

2 points:

-However based on what the point of my post was, poverty statistics are exaggerated and giving more money to anyone who isn't above the median isn't going to accomplish what you want.

-even for the people and children that really need it, it isn't as simple as spend more now = profit later, as long as you care about people. Having said that I am all for specific targeted programs that actually help those that fall through cracks. But doing it in a fiscally conservative way that doesn't have negative side effects (dependency creating) is not about caring less than those who wish to throw more money at the problem.