Jump to content

Ontario budget to focus on child poverty


Recommended Posts

Exactly. The "sanction" was for already-existing actions that had nothing whatsoever to do with state intervention. The contract was sanctioned in a way that Canada sanctions some of my behaviors that have nothing to do with their enforcement, or lack thereof.

The Church was not decreeing who could and could not get married. People just got married, and the church nodded its benign head.

No the Church didn't simply sanction any two individuals who got married. Whether you agreed with them or not, they had standards. For example it would not sanction the marriage of close relatives, or same-sex indiviudals, or people who were already married. You presumption that "the church nodded its benign head" is quite wrong. Just time warp to the Middleages, and take your same-sex underaged lover to the local priest and ask that the bless your marriage. See what happens.

I never said they weren't accepted; I said they weren't necessary.

That they wern't necessary is your opinion. You have agreed that it was accepted. That was my point. Enough people from society believed it was necessary and so implemnted such rules.

Sure, it's a bit of a separate argument---which you summoned. Not me. In a typical conservative formulation, you implied that it "used to always be done this way, and it worked great, so let's bring back the old-timey methods."

When, in fact, such matters are more important NOW than they were in the "olden days."

I can certainly demolish your argument, what I am pointing out is that EVEN if we accept your premise, (which I don't) it still doen't make any sense.

The state implements controls when necesary. If it was necessary back then to establish a age of consent to marriage, it woudl have done so. It did not do so becasue nature established a minimium age for a father so an explicit law was not requred. Today as we no longer require fathers to consent and the consent is delegated to the individuals participating in the marriage, we cannot count on nature to dictate an age of consent.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'm still trying to figure out your position. What is it? Do you think that marriage licenses are necessary? Should anyone be able to get married without regard to ANY qualification?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No the Church didn't simply sanction any two individuals who got married. Whether you agreed with them or not, they had standards. For example it would not sanction the marriage of close relatives, or same-sex indiviudals, or people who were already married. You presumption that "the church nodded its benign head" is quite wrong. Just time warp to the Middleages, and take your same-sex underaged lover to the local priest and ask that the bless your marriage. See what happens.

OK. So I agree with two of the three rules in place.

Along with virtually everyone.

If this was your argument...we wouldn't be having an argument.

That they wern't necessary is your opinion. You have agreed that it was accepted. That was my point. Enough people from society believed it was necessary and so implemnted such rules.

That it wasn't necessary is not my opinion, it's demonstrably true. Your source confirms this.

And we aren't talking about a democracy; "Enough people from society believed it was necessary and implemented such rules"?

You mean the Church hierarchy.

Again, moot, as (aside from a handful of very common, mostly-still-agreed-upon restrictions) people were free to marry whom they wished.

Same as now. So, we don't need your vaunted million-fold increase in government intervention.

The state implements controls when necesary. If it was necessary back then to establish a age of consent to marriage, it woudl have done so. It did not do so becasue nature established a minimium age for a father so an explicit law was not requred. Today as we no longer require fathers to consent and the consent is delegated to the individuals participating in the marriage, we cannot count on nature to dictate an age of consent.

And we don't count on nature to dictate an age of marital consent. There are laws in place.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'm still trying to figure out your position. What is it? Do you think that marriage licenses are necessary? Should anyone be able to get married without regard to ANY qualification?

Sigh. It's stated, Mr. think-the-worst-of-everybody-by-default. It's stated. Yes? Yes.

OH...I also think terrorism is a bad thing. I mean, I'm not sure if I ever explained to you in explicit terms that I don't like murder...so, for future reference, i have stated it outright, and hopefully won't be expected to preface each post with a list of things I do and do not support.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. So I agree with two of the three rules in place.

Along with virtually everyone.

If this was your argument...we wouldn't be having an argument.

You're coming along. So you agree that it is reasonable for the state to intrude and you agree on at least some of the conditions are reasonable conditions.

That it wasn't necessary is not my opinion, it's demonstrably true. Your source confirms this.

Nonsense. Perhaps you can give your theory or quote the source on why rules were enacted which were unnecessary.

And we aren't talking about a democracy; "Enough people from society believed it was necessary and implemented such rules"?

You mean the Church hierarchy.

Again, moot, as (aside from a handful of very common, mostly-still-agreed-upon restrictions) people were free to marry whom they wished.

I see. First it was no restrictions, now you admit that there were a "handful of very common" restrictions. Good job, you're coming around.

Same as now. So, we don't need your vaunted million-fold increase in government intervention.

Can you please explain how you came up with the "million-fold increase" estimate? Since you haven't even adressed the specfic suggestions I've made, I'm curious as how you came to this estimate.

And we don't count on nature to dictate an age of marital consent. There are laws in place.

Great. You finally got my point.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sigh. It's stated, Mr. think-the-worst-of-everybody-by-default. It's stated. Yes? Yes.

No. The were simple questions. It seems that on one hand you don't think marriage licences are necessary, yet you believe there are "two of the three rules in place". Unless you are holding contridictory positions, how can you have rules without implementing an enforcement system such as licensing? The reason I ask you explicit questions, is because you don't answer them, and you object when I infer your position.

OH...I also think terrorism is a bad thing. I mean, I'm not sure if I ever explained to you in explicit terms that I don't like murder...so, for future reference, i have stated it outright, and hopefully won't be expected to preface each post with a list of things I do and do not support.

If you want to make it a snarky pissing contest, I'm more than happy to oblige. If you don't I will refrain as well. Your choice.

BTW, in disputing Marriage Licensing, you haven't manage to respond to the post on restricting parenting. I provided suggestions, you did not respond. Please respond to this post #46

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're coming along. So you agree that it is reasonable for the state to intrude and you agree on at least some of the conditions are reasonable conditions.

It's not a matter of "coming along." I never once said otherwise.

Nonsense. Perhaps you can give your theory or quote the source on why rules were enacted which were unnecessary.

again: permission from the church wasn't required. People got married as a uniltaeral (or perhaps familial) decision.

I see. First it was no restrictions, now you admit that there were a "handful of very common" restrictions. Good job, you're coming around.

I never said there should be no restrictions. You are inventing out of whole cloth.

Why?

Can you please explain how you came up with the "million-fold increase" estimate? Since you haven't even adressed the specfic suggestions I've made, I'm curious as how you came to this estimate.

In the US, it would be (several) million-fold increase. In Canda, it would be a several-hundred thousand increase. That's how many babies are born each year; so that's how government intrusion would have to be exponentially increased.

The reason I ask you explicit questions, is because you don't answer them, and you object when I infer your position.

Again: I did answer it.

There should have been no need; no one would rationally infer that ignoring a question denotes the worst conceivable answer to that question.

If you want to make it a snarky pissing contest, I'm more than happy to oblige. If you don't I will refrain as well. Your choice.

No...it's your choice, as you have made this a snarky pissing contest, complete with the ugliest of allegations, from the start. (Then objecting to my COUNTER-insults as unseemly.)

But if you like, no problem: I have no compunctions about debating with effete little bullies. .

BTW, in disputing Marriage Licensing, you haven't manage to respond to the post on restricting parenting. I provided suggestions, you did not respond. Please respond to this post #46

:)

What, these?:

An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent.

A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia.

Those are already on the books, Renegade. No further intrusion required. The only difficult one here is the first. I would be open to a cautious, conservative change on this issue, personally, but I think family members should be the first and natural candidates for adoption.

And it would not require a sea-change in government intervention.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are already on the books, Renegade. No further intrusion required. The only difficult one here is the first. I would be open to a cautious, conservative change on this issue, personally, but I think family members should be the first and natural candidates for adoption.

And it would not require a sea-change in government intervention.

Ok, so you agree that the rescrictions are reasonable, and as you put it "already on the books". What is not "already on the books" is the preemptive qualification (ie the parents must be qualifed to meet the conditions prior to allowing parenthood).

You are "open to a cautious, conservative change" great. Your issue is that it is not implementable. How about this "cautious, conservative change":

1. In order to have a child a parent's are required to obtain a parrentig license.

2. A license is not given unless both parents are at least 17

3. A license is not given if the parents has a conviction for drug use unless they can prove they have been drug-free for at least a year.

4. A license is not given to anyone who is not legally competent.

5. A license is not given to a previously convicted child-molester or peadophile.

6. A license is not given unless the parent has sufficent income and assets to provide for a child for a year.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...it's your choice, as you have made this a snarky pissing contest, complete with the ugliest of allegations, from the start. (Then objecting to my COUNTER-insults as unseemly.)

But if you like, no problem: I have no compunctions about debating with effete little bullies. .

Hey I'm always up for examining my actions and if an apology is due I'll give it. Let's look back at the first exchange that set you off on your little tirade:

You said:

I agree completely. And when and if you mess up badly enough, THEN the government can intervene.

And I responded:

It would seem that you are comfortable even with proven child-molesters having kids, and would wait until their child was molested before acting, even when it is completely obvious that it will occur.

How is that a misreading of your statement? I even used the word "seem" to indicate that it was my interpretation of the consequences of your statement. It still is. It is neither an insult nor as far as I can tell, inaccurate.

If in all circumstances you are unwilling to act proactively, as your statement indicated your position to be, the logical conclusion I made is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I'm always up for examining my actions and if an apology is due I'll give it. Let's look back at the first exchange that set you off on your little tirade:

You said:

And I responded:

How is that a misreading of your statement? I even used the word "seem" to indicate that it was my interpretation of the consequences of your statement. It still is. It is neither an insult nor as far as I can tell, inaccurate.

If in all circumstances you are unwilling to act proactively, as your statement indicated your position to be, the logical conclusion I made is correct.

No, it's not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion (as long as you were to retain the qualifier "seems") would be something like this:

"It would seem you have not considered the circumstances in which a proven child molester has kids...."

The difference is not pedantic; the difference is in basic decency. Here you would speculate that there was a problem I hadn't thought through.

To say it "would seem [i'm] comfortable" with the notion is a whole different matter; and despite your repeated insistence, it is flatly incorrect. And since no one is "comfortable" with child molestation except molesters, I'm afraid that's the insult that insinuates itself into your argument, whether you meant it or not.

That's why I became so aggrieved.

Anyway, keeping with what seems to be our mutual return to a more civil tenor, I'll try to tackle your specifics:

1. In order to have a child a parent's are required to obtain a parrentig license.

I can think of at least one serious problem here, one that may well be intractable: how many would-be parents plan their pregnancies? I admit i don't know the stats, or if any good ones exist, but I'd personally be surprised if half of all pregnancies were planned. The idea of two people, first married, then planning to get pregnant...well, that sounds sweet, but it's not the universal reality, nor likely even in the majority of cases.

(Hell, the majority of babies aren't even born to married couples. Not anymore.)

And what about the women who spend the first three months in an indecisive limbo? ("Should I keep it or abort?") We're talking about untold tens of thousands of women here. Does the necessity for a license kick in at the moment of decision? How does this affect the woman's (legally-protected) right to privacy about this matter?

Does her doctor have some obligation to report pregnancies to the authorities--after which said authorities send letters or make phone calls, demanding to know when the woman has made her final decision?

What if a couple has a baby, doesn't bother with the licensing...but fulfills all your obligations anyway? Despite your analogy, this is not at all like having a driver's license, in which a three-pronged test must be completed before a license is issued (written, eye exam, practical-driving test).

These are some of the details that concern me. And they can't be worked out as we go; they'd have to be figured out before anything was implemented.

2. A license is not given unless both parents are at least 17

I'm not sure--I mean, why 17 specifically?--but this one doesn't concern me so much. For I am a believer in legal age limits generally (which is why I am opposed to trying criminal children as adults, which I consider profoundly opposed to society's principles).

So I appreciate the logic of this one, even as I still have issues with imnplementation. That is, I am having trouble thinking of this beyond the purely academic, interesting-for-its-own-sake quality. As in, "What would be some interesting ways that society could be different than it is?"...even as I know it cannot ever occur. It's a thought-experiment, for fun, and has nothing of utility beyond that.

3. A license is not given if the parents has a conviction for drug use unless they can prove they have been drug-free for at least a year.

I think we'd have to define "drug use." For example, the illegal substance marijuana is less harmful (both physically and in terms of parental impairment) then is an addiction to many legal painkillers. A child is better off with a convicted pot-user than with a person (perfectly legally) addled by Demerol or Percocet or Oxycontin.

4. A license is not given to anyone who is not legally competent.

This sounds reasonable on its face, but what IS "legally competent"? How is this determined, and who determines it? Would each pregnant woman undergo a psychiatric observation? Would the competence measure be determined by psychiatric opion, or by lay knowledge--"common sense" is the usual, and laughable, term?

I don't think that most professional psychiatrists and psychologists would be comfortable in making this assessment...since to my knowledge there IS no measure for parental competency. How could it be devised without being totally arbitrary?

Does a parent who believes in Creationism over Evolution qualify as incompetent? They're certainly fantasists, hostile to the objective world around them.

5. A license is not given to a previously convicted child-molester or peadophile.

Like i said, I have no problem with this one. We could implement it right now, without any extra licensing methods.

6. A license is not given unless the parent has sufficent income and assets to provide for a child for a year.

Big problem here.

Very, very, very, very few would-be parents have sufficient income and assets to provide for a child for a year. The number is vanishingly small. You've not only insisted that the poor can't have babies--at all; you've also removed most of the middle-class (at least the young and unestablished) from parenthood.

So we'd we have is the majority acting as a service class--babymakers--for the well-to-do, and for people who have garnered enough savings and assets, which is not most young parents.

And even given that scenario (which is ugly enough), there simply wouldn't be enough of them. The number of babies would far outstrip the number of "suitable" candidates for parenthood. So what do we do with all these little buggers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I became so aggrieved.

Look, if the words "are comfortable" makes you uncomfortable, I'm happy to substitute "have not considered".

I can think of at least one serious problem here, one that may well be intractable: how many would-be parents plan their pregnancies? I admit i don't know the stats, or if any good ones exist, but I'd personally be surprised if half of all pregnancies were planned. The idea of two people, first married, then planning to get pregnant...well, that sounds sweet, but it's not the universal reality, nor likely even in the majority of cases.

(Hell, the majority of babies aren't even born to married couples. Not anymore.)

And what about the women who spend the first three months in an indecisive limbo? ("Should I keep it or abort?") We're talking about untold tens of thousands of women here. Does the necessity for a license kick in at the moment of decision? How does this affect the woman's (legally-protected) right to privacy about this matter?

Does her doctor have some obligation to report pregnancies to the authorities--after which said authorities send letters or make phone calls, demanding to know when the woman has made her final decision?

What if a couple has a baby, doesn't bother with the licensing...but fulfills all your obligations anyway? Despite your analogy, this is not at all like having a driver's license, in which a three-pronged test must be completed before a license is issued (written, eye exam, practical-driving test).

These are some of the details that concern me. And they can't be worked out as we go; they'd have to be figured out before anything was implemented.

A unplanned pregnancy has 8-9 months (give or take), from coneption to apply for a licence. If they think that they might keep the child, even in the first 3 months, they should apply. There is no issue if the pregnancy never comes to term. The necessitiy for a license should be sometime prior to birth. Application for a license doens't really affect the woman's privacy. We file our income, and expect the details to be kept private. We take blood test and expect the results to be kept private. I realize tht many babies are not born to married couples. That is why implementing any kind of controls during marriage licensing is an outdated concept. The doctor is under no obligation to report a pregnancy because up to that point nothing has been done to break the regulations. A license is required by the time birth comes around. A parent who doesn't get a license even though they qualify, should face some kind of penalty (eg a fine). Further the parents are taking a chance that a license may not be granted and they could face additional consequnce. This is stong motivation for them to get a licence prior. If you don't like the driver's license analogy, simiply look at any other licensing analogy. If there are significant penalties for qualified people to practice without a license, it is a strong motivation to get a license, and the vast, vast majority will. There are very few unlicensed doctors practicing pretending that they are licensed.

The license should also be a prerequisite to further program enrollment.

I'm not sure--I mean, why 17 specifically?--but this one doesn't concern me so much. For I am a believer in legal age limits generally (which is why I am opposed to trying criminal children as adults, which I consider profoundly opposed to society's principles).

So I appreciate the logic of this one, even as I still have issues with imnplementation. That is, I am having trouble thinking of this beyond the purely academic, interesting-for-its-own-sake quality. As in, "What would be some interesting ways that society could be different than it is?"...even as I know it cannot ever occur. It's a thought-experiment, for fun, and has nothing of utility beyond that.

17 is what I think a reasonable number is. I would accept that 16 could be or 18 could be, however I strongly doubt 14 year olds are old enough to accept the responsibilties of parenting. I'm not sure what issue you have with implementation. It is easily measurable.

I think we'd have to define "drug use." For example, the illegal substance marijuana is less harmful (both physically and in terms of parental impairment) then is an addiction to many legal painkillers. A child is better off with a convicted pot-user than with a person (perfectly legally) addled by Demerol or Percocet or Oxycontin.

I define drug-use as illegal drug use. You may be correct that a child is better off with a conficted pot-user than a perception drug addict, but the issue is one is easily measurable and the other may be harder to measure. Your argument here is analogous to saying that a sleepy driver can be more dangourous than a slightly intoxicated one, and so we should not set a standard for intoxication.

This sounds reasonable on its face, but what IS "legally competent"? How is this determined, and who determines it? Would each pregnant woman undergo a psychiatric observation? Would the competence measure be determined by psychiatric opion, or by lay knowledge--"common sense" is the usual, and laughable, term?

I don't think that most professional psychiatrists and psychologists would be comfortable in making this assessment...since to my knowledge there IS no measure for parental competency. How could it be devised without being totally arbitrary?

Does a parent who believes in Creationism over Evolution qualify as incompetent? They're certainly fantasists, hostile to the objective world around them.

The state presumes someone is competent. They are only legally incompetent once someone petitions the court and has them declared incompentnt. (for example through mental disease). My suggestion is relatively benign, however it allows for the case of perhaps a mentally undeveloped indiviudal is set on having a child. Their guardian can petition the court to have them declared legally incompetent.

Like i said, I have no problem with this one. We could implement it right now, without any extra licensing methods.

No you still have a problem with this one. Without licensing you would not act to prevent a child being born. Even after birth what would you do? Take away the child before molestation occured?

As I understnd the law now for known child molesters, in most cases they have to give notice if they intend to move to a new neighbourhood. Licencing is the quivalent for notification and permission for parenthood.

Big problem here.

Very, very, very, very few would-be parents have sufficient income and assets to provide for a child for a year. The number is vanishingly small. You've not only insisted that the poor can't have babies--at all; you've also removed most of the middle-class (at least the young and unestablished) from parenthood.

So we'd we have is the majority acting as a service class--babymakers--for the well-to-do, and for people who have garnered enough savings and assets, which is not most young parents.

And even given that scenario (which is ugly enough), there simply wouldn't be enough of them. The number of babies would far outstrip the number of "suitable" candidates for parenthood. So what do we do with all these little buggers?

It seems your problem is centered around the level of assets required. I'm ok to moving it to whatever is a reasonable level. If it is not 1 year, how much is it? 6 month? 3 months? 1 day? Clearly if potential parents only have assets to take care of a child for 1 day, they are not prepared to have a child, nor do they have support systems in place. You are guessing that the number of babies would outstrip canidtes for parenthood. My guess, is that we would have less babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, if the words "are comfortable" makes you uncomfortable, I'm happy to substitute "have not considered".

I appreciate it.

As for the rest of your post: because you have explained yourself well throughout, I feel compelled to give your points some more thought before replying. (Consider it a matter or respect for your opinions.)

I will say that I really do consider your ideas largely impossible...which is why I see this as nothing more than a thought-experiment, along the lines of imagining, just for fun, a different society that could never be. Or thinking about how I"d spend my lottery winnings, even though I don't buy lottery tickets.

However, I don't mean to imply that you have said nothing interesting, which is why I'll get back to you on at least some of your points.

But just one or two things about your final passge here:

It seems your problem is centered around the level of assets required. I'm ok to moving it to whatever is a reasonable level. If it is not 1 year, how much is it? 6 month? 3 months? 1 day? Clearly if potential parents only have assets to take care of a child for 1 day, they are not prepared to have a child, nor do they have support systems in place.

Fair enough...but the number of parents who don't have any support system whatsoever, and not enough assets for even a day, are a rarity; and they would already be part of existing provisions, existing laws in place to protect children.

Because you are here citing only the extreme case, it has little to do with an argument for government expansion in this area. You might argue that institutions such as Child Welfare Agencies are insufficient here (I'm not declaratively stating that's the case, because I don't really know...but it could be the case)...but that is a matter of being insufficient within an already-existing purview. We wouldn't need to change the way things are done, but rather make more efficient what is already in place.

You are guessing that the number of babies would outstrip canidtes for parenthood. My guess, is that we would have less babies.

But that is a guess. And since most babies are not planned in the first place, I'm not seeing it. Possibly some degree of greater caution would prevail, but I see no evidence to lead me to believe the difference would be profound.

Instead, we'd have a glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies every year.

Heck, if the numbers were cut in half (which I sincerely doubt) we're still talking somewhere around the level of 250 000 babies.

Each year.

There are not enough homes to take them in. We make a mistake if we look at the numbers of people who are able, under your proposed qualifications, to take in babies, and assume it sufficient. And subtract from that the number of qualified candidates who simply wouldn't want to adopt. (ie the vast majority of them.)

Abortion (while I support the right) simply isn't an option for a lot of people either, because they are fundamentally opposed. We certainly can't go down the road of prescribed--and forced--abortions.

So even as you raise many good points, and have explained them throughout this post rather well, it ultimately comes down to hoping that not too many babies will be born. When, in my opinion, it would be hundreds of thousands a year, every year, on and on.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that I really do consider your ideas largely impossible...which is why I see this as nothing more than a thought-experiment, along the lines of imagining, just for fun, a different society that could never be. Or thinking about how I"d spend my lottery winnings, even though I don't buy lottery tickets.

Pretty much every set of regulations we have today started as a "thought exercise". All it really ends up taking is one or more series of events which are preventable and catch enough public attention, in order to pressure legislators to turn "thought" to "action". I'm sure at one time any movment in the US to license firearms was simply a thought-experiment. With time and changing conditions, thought started to become action.

More food for "thought"

Moving Toward a License to Parent

Should we need a license to be a parent?

Should You Need a License to Parent?

In case you think there is no support among the public, the last link did an online poll:

If a license to marry is required, should we also have a license to create children?

Absolutely (43%, 13 Votes)

Absolutely not! (43%, 13 Votes)

Abstinence is best (14%, 4 Votes)

Fair enough...but the number of parents who don't have any support system whatsoever, and not enough assets for even a day, are a rarity; and they would already be part of existing provisions, existing laws in place to protect children.

Sure, a day might be extreme, but clearly there are significant number of people having kids they cannot afford and then asking the state for help to support them. If you allege that there are existing laws in place to deter this behaviour, then why are they not working. Protecting children after they have been brought into the situation is not enough. Some measure of prevention is necessary.

Because you are here citing only the extreme case, it has little to do with an argument for government expansion in this area. You might argue that institutions such as Child Welfare Agencies are insufficient here (I'm not declaratively stating that's the case, because I don't really know...but it could be the case)...but that is a matter of being insufficient within an already-existing purview. We wouldn't need to change the way things are done, but rather make more efficient what is already in place.

Again, making the current situation more efficient doesn't do anything to prevent people from having children they cannot afford. It simply tries to remediate after the fact.

But that is a guess. And since most babies are not planned in the first place, I'm not seeing it. Possibly some degree of greater caution would prevail, but I see no evidence to lead me to believe the difference would be profound.

Instead, we'd have a glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies every year.

Heck, if the numbers were cut in half (which I sincerely doubt) we're still talking somewhere around the level of 250 000 babies.

Each year.

There are not enough homes to take them in. We make a mistake if we look at the numbers of people who are able, under your proposed qualifications, to take in babies, and assume it sufficient. And subtract from that the number of qualified candidates who simply wouldn't want to adopt. (ie the vast majority of them.)

You seem to have created an estimate (out of what, I have no idea) based upon my proposal of assets for 1 year. You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity. So somewhere in between is there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"? What is that level? Since you seem capable of doing an estimate of how much of a glut is created based upon requring a year's worth of assets, simply work backwards and estimate what level is required so that you have no glut and current adoption channels can handle placement.

Abortion (while I support the right) simply isn't an option for a lot of people either, because they are fundamentally opposed. We certainly can't go down the road of prescribed--and forced--abortions.

Parent who are not qualified parents have the option of aborting or if they are fundamentally opposed, adopting out.

So even as you raise many good points, and have explained them throughout this post rather well, it ultimately comes down to hoping that not too many babies will be born. When, in my opinion, it would be hundreds of thousands a year, every year, on and on.

Again, I don't know where you got the "hundreds of thousands" number. If your number is based upon requiring a too-high level of assets and income. Great, let's reduce it, or require some proof of additional guarantees of support (eg parental support). You have not identified the level you are ok with.

Fundamentally, I don't thank moms on welfare without other means of financial support ought to be having more kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much every set of regulations we have today started as a "thought exercise". All it really ends up taking is one or more series of events which are preventable and catch enough public attention, in order to pressure legislators to turn "thought" to "action". I'm sure at one time any movment in the US to license firearms was simply a thought-experiment. With time and changing conditions, thought started to become action.

Right. And hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy.

Sure, a day might be extreme, but clearly there are significant number of people having kids they cannot afford and then asking the state for help to support them. If you allege that there are existing laws in place to deter this behaviour, then why are they not working. Protecting children after they have been brought into the situation is not enough. Some measure of prevention is necessary.

But you can't assume that, since there is a problem, there must be an easy fix. There isn't one.

You seem to have created an estimate (out of what, I have no idea) based upon my proposal of assets for 1 year. You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity. So somewhere in between is there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"? What is that level?

????

No. Not only do I NOT think that, but I was perfectly clear and explicit that I do not think that.

You've really got to stop inventing opinions for me that I do not hold. You complain about my not answering matters head-on...but when I DO so, you ignore it, restating the orginal (false) claim about my alleged opinion.

Again: I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.

Since you seem capable of doing an estimate of how much of a glut is created based upon requring a year's worth of assets, simply work backwards and estimate what level is required so that you have no glut and current adoption channels can handle placement.

Hey, it's your claim in the first place. You're the one who thinks babies could be taken away from financially unsuitable parents and adopted by those with more means. It is up to you to determine at what levels this would be feasible.

Because my claim, unchanged, is that it would NOT be feasible.

Parent who are not qualified parents have the option of aborting or if they are fundamentally opposed, adopting out.

This point was obvious already. I"m asking you why you think there wouldn't be more babies than potential adoptees. Are there hundreds of thousands of parents in Canada who are (first) financially qualified according to you, and (second) willing to adopt?

Where's your evidence for this claim?

Again, I don't know where you got the "hundreds of thousands" number.

Like I said: hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year.

If your number is based upon requiring a too-high level of assets and income. Great, let's reduce it, or require some proof of additional guarantees of support (eg parental support). You have not identified the level you are ok with.

I have identified no such level because I am not seeing how you propose to deal with all the babies.

Fundamentally, I don't thank moms on welfare without other means of financial support ought to be having more kids.

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. And hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy.

Huh? I have no idea on what your response means. Which "hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy"? Which policy? Your response makes no sense to me.

But you can't assume that, since there is a problem, there must be an easy fix. There isn't one.

I don't and there isn't an easy fix. What I'm proposing isn't necessarily easy.

????

No. Not only do I NOT think that, but I was perfectly clear and explicit that I do not think that.

Huh?

Which part don't you agree with?

The part which I said: "You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity"

This was based upon your statement:

the number of parents who don't have any support system whatsoever, and not enough assets for even a day, are a rarity

or perhaps when I said this:"there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"?

Which was based upon this:

we'd have a glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies
every year
.

Sorry I'm really not understanding your position. Where did the glut of homeless babies come from? Unplanned pregnancies? Do you believe that EVERY parent who has a child would not be qualifed under my licensing rules? If so what condition would disqualify them. In my response I assumed you meant under the "asset and income" rule. If something else, please clarify.

You've really got to stop inventing opinions for me that I do not hold. You complain about my not answering matters head-on...but when I DO so, you ignore it, restating the orginal (false) claim about my alleged opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to invent your opinions. I am trying to understand your position you claim to articulate so clearly. Well, it isn't clear to me. Perhaps we can retain as a civilized dialogue if you didn't accuse me of inventing opinions and stuck to correcting misumderstandings.

Again: I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.

OK. Then let's backtrack. What under my proposal makes parents unsuitable if not the financial criteria?

Hey, it's your claim in the first place. You're the one who thinks babies could be taken away from financially unsuitable parents and adopted by those with more means. It is up to you to determine at what levels this would be feasible.

Yep. And I've suggested them. My responses were based upon the presumption that you thought the level was too high. You indicate above that there is NO level which would end up with more babies than "suitable" parents. If I read that right, even a parent is required to have $1 in their account, that woudl be too high a barrier and it would cause people to be disqualifed from parenthood. Am I understanding your position correctly?

Because my claim, unchanged, is that it would NOT be feasible.

Yes it is your claim, IOW your opinion.

This point was obvious already. I"m asking you why you think there wouldn't be more babies than potential adoptees. Are there hundreds of thousands of parents in Canada who are (first) financially qualified according to you, and (second) willing to adopt?

Let me understand your question. First, there are approximately 377,000 births in Canada each year. Link so you are assuming that the majority of these births would be to unqualified parents, and want to know where they will be placed?? Is that your question?

Where's your evidence for this claim?

What claim? That families can adopt out? There are currently waiting list for babies for adoption. There are currently a significant number of interational adoption, pointing to local demand.

Like I said: hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year.

That doesn't make hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents each year. In fact the vast majority, under the rules I propose would be suitable, a small minority would not.

I have identified no such level because I am not seeing how you propose to deal with all the babies.

An evasive answer if I've ever heard one. (ie "I won't answer your question becuse I'm not happy with yours")

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow, Renegade. We both agree to have a civilized discussion, and yet you keep pulling the same stunts:

Notably, inventing my opinions for me...and then implying I'm being uncivil when I perform the heresy of objecting to this.

Anyway, virtually your entire post, which breaks my post up into one decontextualized quote after another, which you then expect me to answer, finally comes to the crux of it.

Sorry I'm really not understanding your position. Where did the glut of homeless babies come from? Unplanned pregnancies? Do you believe that EVERY parent who has a child would not be qualifed under my licensing rules? If so what condition would disqualify them. In my response I assumed you meant under the "asset and income" rule. If something else, please clarify.

Not every child. Merely most of them. That's the hundreds of thousands to which I referred. I even gave you the possibility--as doubtful as I think it is--that it could be half of that number.

Yep. And I've suggested them. My responses were based upon the presumption that you thought the level was too high. You indicate above that there is NO level which would end up with more babies than "suitable" parents. If I read that right, even a parent is required to have $1 in their account, that woudl be too high a barrier and it would cause people to be disqualifed from parenthood. Am I understanding your position correctly?

???? Obviously $1 dollar would not be "too high," just as obviously this doesn't in any way fit into your proposals.

You wish to pin ME down to a specific number; even though I've made it clear that I oppose this idea in its entirety.

And then you call this "evasion," as if your question is a good one that deserves an answer. But it isn't. I reject the idea that finance play a part in this scheme; that poor people become a babymaking service class for the well-to-do.

It's not evasion: it's rejection of your premise entire.

Again, since this is your notion, not mine, what do you propose? You've said a year...it was the only specific you'd offer. So let's go with that in the meantime.

Let me understand your question. First, there are approximately 377,000 births in Canada each year. Link so you are assuming that the majority of these births would be to unqualified parents, and want to know where they will be placed?? Is that your question?

Exactly. (unqualified by your standards, not mine...and your financial reason would be the major obstacle.) What is to be done with them?

And another pertinent question: what kind of society has the majority (or even a plurality) of its citizens not allowed to have children?

What are the social consequences of this?

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you people think you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with child poverty.

You cannot eliminate "child poverty" in any event, as the very nature of the definition used (being a percntage of those below the mean) is that is it will always be present.

Ie, if the average wage in Canada rose to ten million per year, those only pulling in two million per year would be considered to be living in poverty.

Child Poverty in Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you people think you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with child poverty.

You cannot eliminate "child poverty" in any event, as the very nature of the definition used (being a percntage of those below the mean) is that is it will always be present.

Ie, if the average wage in Canada rose to ten million per year, those only pulling in two million per year would be considered to be living in poverty.

Child Poverty in Canada

Our discussion has veered off into a slightly tangential (but still related) topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow, Renegade. We both agree to have a civilized discussion, and yet you keep pulling the same stunts:

Notably, inventing my opinions for me...and then implying I'm being uncivil when I perform the heresy of objecting to this.

Look I want to keep it civil, however you have accused me of inventing opinions in two separate posts now. I have even quoted where I have drawn the opinions from. You provide no response about why my conclusion of your opinion is wrong. In fact I have simply restated exactly what you have said WORD FOR WORD, yet you conclude that it is an invented opinion. If I have not interpreted your opinion correctly it is based upon my MISUNDERSTANDING of your position, and I offered you the opportunity to correct it. Your repeated accusation of calling it an invented opinion is nothing more than an insult and will be treated as such.

Anyway, virtually your entire post, which breaks my post up into one decontextualized quote after another, which you then expect me to answer, finally comes to the crux of it.

Not every child. Merely most of them. That's the hundreds of thousands to which I referred. I even gave you the possibility--as doubtful as I think it is--that it could be half of that number.

If that is your conclusion it is nothing short of ridiculous. You have concluded that hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualified as parents, EVEN when the threshold I have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing. Unless you have some evidence that hundreds of thousands of parents are drug users, incompetent, or underage, your conclusion is so unbelievable that it is not worth responding to as an objection.

???? Obviously $1 dollar would not be "too high," just as obviously this doesn't in any way fit into your proposals.

Sure it does. I have specified what I think is a suitable target. Im open to modification to what ever seems to be the right number. I have repeatedly said this. It is your issue that you dont wish to explore this.

You wish to pin ME down to a specific number; even though I've made it clear that I oppose this idea in its entirety.

And then you call this "evasion," as if your question is a good one that deserves an answer. But it isn't. I reject the idea that finance play a part in this scheme; that poor people become a babymaking service class for the well-to-do.

It's not evasion: it's rejection of your premise entire.

Actually you have already been pinned down to a number. You quoted a number which make zero sense . Do you remember saying this???("I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.". IOW, you have said even at the zero dollar level, it would still result in hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents.

I have given you at least a couple of opportunities to peg a more realistic number, but since you refuse to do so, Im fine to use you last stated position, as it illustrates how truly ridiculous your position is.

In you post you admit why you refuse to come up with a number. It not as per your original objection (ie that it would end up with a glut of babies), it is specifically because you are opposed to the concept. That you are opposed to the concept is obvious. That I have addressed your original objection, is also obvious.

Again, since this is your notion, not mine, what do you propose? You've said a year...it was the only specific you'd offer. So let's go with that in the meantime.

Actually Ive suggested a couple of levels, none of which you commented on. What would you like instead? I can start at $1 and increment it by $1 until we find the point you consider unreasonably high?

Exactly. (unqualified by your standards, not mine...and your financial reason would be the major obstacle.) What is to be done with them?

Your position makes no sense. If I offer to lower the financial barrier to virtually nothing, how can it continue to be a barrier? Since you refuse to actually discuss the level of the barrier, your objection is irrelevant.

And another pertinent question: what kind of society has the majority (or even a plurality) of its citizens not allowed to have children?

Well, well, I somehow knew it would come to this. I gave you the opportunity to list your objection. You indicated that your ONLY objection was implementability of the system. I somehow had the feeling that once you were cornered in your position you would raise this objection. I feel no particular compunction to address objections such as this, because if you had originally raised this, then this would have been the focus of discussion rather than the details we have already gone through. IOW, it makes no sense to have gone through the discussion we have already gone through unless we were already past this objection.

I will not waste my time addressing this objection except to say that a society is perfectly within its rights to hold parents to obligations toward their child.

What are the social consequences of this?

More children brought up in environments where parents can live up to their commitments.

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

Still want to avoid answering a simple question eh? I guess you don't want to explicitly admit to a problem.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot eliminate "child poverty" in any event, as the very nature of the definition used (being a percntage of those below the mean) is that is it will always be present.

Yes, I realize that. As long as a relative measure is used to measure poverty, you will always have poor people and poor kids.

That is not the original point of the thread. I agree that a more realistic measurement of poverty would be an absolute measurement. However even if you use an absolute measurement, to define who is poor, my premise remains:

Kids in poverty is a result of poor parents having kids. If we want less kids in poverty, we should discourage poor parents from having kids they cannot provide for.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I want to keep it civil, however you have accused me of “inventing opinions” in two separate posts now. I have even quoted where I have drawn the opinions from.

Well, luckily, at the end of your post here, you offer a fine example of yourself doing exactly this. I couldn't have asked for a better example.

You quote me, then a response from yourself asking a question. But note: in the very quote attributed to me, I already answered the question, clearly and unambiguously:

Bloodyminded said:

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

Renegade, on 12 March 2010 - 02:25 PM, said:

I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

YOU offered me this...and your proof that I avoid answering direct questions is that...I didn't answer the same question twice? Once was insufficient?

Christ, you quoted my answering the question. You quoted it...and then you have the gall to say I'm not answering it?

Did you even read the passage of mine that you were quoting before you asked your (already answered) question?

If that is your conclusion it is nothing short of ridiculous. You have concluded that hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualified as parents, EVEN when the threshold I have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing. Unless you have some evidence that hundreds of thousands of parents are drug users, incompetent, or underage, your conclusion is so unbelievable that it is not worth responding to as an objection.

Well, then let me repeat the point I've made more than once on this matter and which you absolutely refuse to address:

IF "the threshhold [you] have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing," then this part of the debate is completely over. The other qualifications don't matter here, because this is the one we're talking about.

I'm not sying hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualifed if the barrier was reduced to zero; I'm saying you have abandoned your argument altogether, asked me, "But what about if the barrier doesn't exist? What then?"

What then? Why, we are not arguing about your proposed qualifications anymore. You ahve just gotten rid of one of them completely.

Actually you have already been pinned down to a number. You quoted a number which make zero sense . Do you remember saying this???("I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.". IOW, you have said even at the zero dollar level, it would still result in hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents.

Yes, i see what you mean, but this is a result of your convoluted semi-Socratic method, as well as your tendency to pluck decontextualized passages from my answer, and then respond to them with more questions.

The point here was to answer another unsubstantiated claim you made: that the real-time numbers of babies born will decrease under stricter licensing procedures. And i even granted that it could well decrease. However, it would not decrease enough, and so there would still be lots of homeless babies. Meanwhile, if the financial barrier is "decreased to zero," this of course means the financial barrier is eliminated. So your argument ends at that point.

I have given you at least a couple of opportunities to peg a more realistic number, but since you refuse to do so, I’m fine to use you last stated position, as it illustrates how truly ridiculous your position is.

In you post you admit why you refuse to come up with a number. It not as per your original objection (ie that it would end up with a glut of babies), it is specifically because you are opposed to the concept. That you are opposed to the concept is obvious. That I have addressed your original objection, is also obvious.

Sure, you've given me an opportunity to "peg a more realistic measure"; ie come up with a wantonly useless and meaningless guess (along the lines of your arbitrary "one year," for no purpsoe other than to keep this debate within strict parameters to be ordained only by yourself. You'll go so far as to say, "What if my qualifications aren't in effect?" (ie eliminating financial barriers). As if the argument isn't over at the moment you deign to do this.

Actually I’ve suggested a couple of levels, none of which you commented on. What would you like instead? I can start at $1 and increment it by $1 until we find the point you consider unreasonably high?

What would i like? You wish me to humour you and arbitrarily choose some number, with no method or rationale behind the plucking it out of thin air? Why? What's the point of this? I feel you're being mischievous.

Your position makes no sense. If I offer to lower the financial barrier to virtually nothing, how can it continue to be a barrier? Since you refuse to actually discuss the level of the barrier, your objection is irrelevant.

:) 1. If the financial barrier is lowered to zero, then what are we debating?

2. If I am to randomly pick some number, without reason or rationale (which is what picking some random number IS...without reason or rationale), then how is that useful? how does it even make any sense?

Well, well, I somehow knew it would come to this. I gave you the opportunity to list your objection. You indicated that your ONLY objection was implementability of the system. I somehow had the feeling that once you were cornered in your position you would raise this objection.

You have cornered yourself, hence your frustration.

And the question is wholly legitimate. You know it is, which is why you criticize the perfectly good question even as you ignore it.

I suppose there is no other stance for the radical statist once he has cornered himself with his own flawed arguments.

I feel no particular compunction to address objections such as this, because if you had originally raised this, then this would have been the focus of discussion rather than the details we have already gone through. IOW, it makes no sense to have gone through the discussion we have already gone through unless we were already past this objection.

??? What..it's "too late"? the quesiton might have been answered, but since it comes up now...forget it?

You have no answer, and it caught you off guard. That's all.

Still want to avoid answering a simple question eh? I guess you don't want to explicitly admit to a problem.

An astonishing admonition, coming directly on the heels of your explicitly determining not to answer an important question.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, luckily, at the end of your post here, you offer a fine example of yourself doing exactly this. I couldn't have asked for a better example.

You quote me, then a response from yourself asking a question. But note: in the very quote attributed to me, I already answered the question, clearly and unambiguously:

YOU offered me this...and your proof that I avoid answering direct questions is that...I didn't answer the same question twice? Once was insufficient?

Christ, you quoted my answering the question. You quoted it...and then you have the gall to say I'm not answering it?

Did you even read the passage of mine that you were quoting before you asked your (already answered) question?

Let me point out the difference between the way you interpret words and I do.

You said "I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem" and you expect me to interpret that to be "Yes, I recognize there is a problem.". Unfortunately, semantics is important and "not questioning" is not the same as "acknowldeging". It is clear to me that because you jump to assumptions, you expect me to as well.

Well, then let me repeat the point I've made more than once on this matter and which you absolutely refuse to address:

IF "the threshhold [you] have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing," then this part of the debate is completely over. The other qualifications don't matter here, because this is the one we're talking about.

I'm not sying hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualifed if the barrier was reduced to zero; I'm saying you have abandoned your argument altogether, asked me, "But what about if the barrier doesn't exist? What then?"

What then? Why, we are not arguing about your proposed qualifications anymore. You ahve just gotten rid of one of them completely.

Because, my dear bloodyminded, we are bracketing the problem. You refuse to actually address the issue because that would actually defeat your argument.

Let me slowly explain the mathematical logic to you. At at level of $0 YOU agree that no problem exist. At the level I proposed, YOU claim that a problem exist. It is therefore a logical certainty that the level at which the problem appears (at least according to you) MUST BE BETWEEN THE TWO. It matters not that you refuse to define the specfic level. Anyone even putting aside what their feeling on the issue would rationally acknowledge that there is no other logical conclusion.

Yes, i see what you mean, but this is a result of your convoluted semi-Socratic method, as well as your tendency to pluck decontextualized passages from my answer, and then respond to them with more questions.

Yes it is a common ploy when your own words are put to you, to claim, "oh you took it out of context". Well, my dear bloodyminded, all the words are there. You are free to quote the rest of the context and demonstrate how I so abused your quote by taking it out of context.

The point here was to answer another unsubstantiated claim you made: that the real-time numbers of babies born will decrease under stricter licensing procedures. And i even granted that it could well decrease. However, it would not decrease enough, and so there would still be lots of homeless babies. Meanwhile, if the financial barrier is "decreased to zero," this of course means the financial barrier is eliminated. So your argument ends at that point.

Can you quote that unsubstantiated claim? I dont' believe that I made such a claim. I do believe it MAY decrease, but even if it does not, nothing about my argument changes. What I do believe will decrease is the number of kids belonging to unqualifed parents.

I have already addressed the irrefutable logic of that the level of the finanical barrier must exist. I need not address any further.

Sure, you've given me an opportunity to "peg a more realistic measure"; ie come up with a wantonly useless and meaningless guess (along the lines of your arbitrary "one year," for no purpsoe other than to keep this debate within strict parameters to be ordained only by yourself. You'll go so far as to say, "What if my qualifications aren't in effect?" (ie eliminating financial barriers). As if the argument isn't over at the moment you deign to do this.

What would i like? You wish me to humour you and arbitrarily choose some number, with no method or rationale behind the plucking it out of thin air? Why? What's the point of this? I feel you're being mischievous.

:) 1. If the financial barrier is lowered to zero, then what are we debating?

2. If I am to randomly pick some number, without reason or rationale (which is what picking some random number IS...without reason or rationale), then how is that useful? how does it even make any sense?

Hey you already came up with a "a wantonly useless and meaningless guess" (remember the glut of hundreds of thousands of babies), if you wanted a specfic number, you can easily make another guess. That you don't want to is fine with me. I have already proved what I need to.

You have cornered yourself, hence your frustration.

Not really. I've proved my point. Anyone reading this thread can see that, whether you do or not is irrlevant to me.

And the question is wholly legitimate. You know it is, which is why you criticize the perfectly good question even as you ignore it.

Of course it is a legitimate question. It is far more legitimate question than the nonsense you raised about feasibilty. But why raise it now, after you declared that your ONLY objection was feasability of impementation?

It is a common tactic when your arguments are exhausted to suddenly come up with another objection.

It would be the right objection to raise, and you should have raised it first, and I woudl have addressed if first. At this point why bother addresssing it, until we have agreed that the current objection (feasabilty) has been addressed.

??? What..it's "too late"? the quesiton might have been answered, but since it comes up now...forget it?

Yes forget it.I'll be happy to address it if another poster brings it up. It is my view you are just bringing it up to be disingenuous.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I realize that. As long as a relative measure is used to measure poverty, you will always have poor people and poor kids.

That is not the original point of the thread. I agree that a more realistic measurement of poverty would be an absolute measurement. However even if you use an absolute measurement, to define who is poor, my premise remains:

Kids in poverty is a result of poor parents having kids. If we want less kids in poverty, we should discourage poor parents from having kids they cannot provide for.

Somewhere in that cite, I believe, is a study which indicates that, so long as basic, fundamental needs are met, ie, food, clothing, shelter, the future outlook for poor kids doesnot really depend on poverty, on how much money their parents have or make, but on fundamental aspects of character they learn from those parents. So unless you can make the case that poor people are by nature less honest, less honorable, etc., than say, politicians or lawyers, I'm not sure how you would draft any law justyfing the removal of their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere in that cite, I believe, is a study which indicates that, so long as basic, fundamental needs are met, ie, food, clothing, shelter, the future outlook for poor kids doesnot really depend on poverty, on how much money their parents have or make, but on fundamental aspects of character they learn from those parents. So unless you can make the case that poor people are by nature less honest, less honorable, etc., than say, politicians or lawyers, I'm not sure how you would draft any law justyfing the removal of their children.

Argus, I actualy agree with you. The key is that the basic, fundamentals need to be met. Even to meet those needs requires an obligation on which the parents must deliver. For example if a sole-support parent is on welfare, and cannot afford to provide even the basics of food, clothing, or shelter, then they are not in a position to deliver on those obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus, I actualy agree with you. The key is that the basic, fundamentals need to be met. Even to meet those needs requires an obligation on which the parents must deliver. For example if a sole-support parent is on welfare, and cannot afford to provide even the basics of food, clothing, or shelter, then they are not in a position to deliver on those obligations.

But you said a year. That's how financially secure parents must be in order to be allowed to be parents: one year of sufficient income.

That's a lot more people than those on welfare. How many would-be parents--particularly among the relatively young--could live off their savings and investments for a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you said a year. That's how financially secure parents must be in order to be allowed to be parents: one year of sufficient income.

That's a lot more people than those on welfare. How many would-be parents--particularly among the relatively young--could live off their savings and investments for a year?

I did not mean one year of savings in the absense of income or other income support mechanisms. What I meant is the incremental cost of supporting an additional child for a year (for example, childcare, baby food, baby supplies, etc).

I have also repeatedly suggested I am open to adjust the number to what is a reasonable level:

I'm ok to moving it to whatever is a reasonable level. If it is not 1 year

I have indicated what I believe to a reasonable level, I have also indicated an openness to discuss the right level, but you have refused to discus what that level is, so why fixate on my proposed level?

I'm really not sure why your objection are related to the impractality of the level since you have already indicated that you have a conceptual problem that ANY LEVEL should be imposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad they have been raising the minimum wage as it was too low in 2004 when it was $6.85/hr or something like that. On April 1st it goes up to $10.25 and I fully support this, it's important for people to be able to afford their rents, food and such. So two people living together making minimum wage will be earning $20.50/hr collectively. When I made $20/hr, I'd clear something like $600 per week or a bit higher like $613/wk or something. Which works out to be $2400/net month which is $28,800 per year take home pay. This is enough for people to raise a small family on for sure.

It's a heck of a lot better the $6.85/hr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...