About Poor People Having Children

[Lyric]

I occasionally hear (both here and elsewhere) the idea put forth that poor people shouldn't have children because they can't afford to care for them by themselves and certain people resent having to help them with tax dollars. It got me thinking about long-term consequences, so please bear with me.

Firstly, it's pretty much a given that the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches dream is a myth. There are incredibly rare exceptions, of course--lottery winners, people who have unbelievable good luck and talent who manage to overcome enormous obstacles and move into the middle class--but for the most part, poor people tend to STAY poor. Poverty is a lifelong baseline condition for most poor people; there are income hills and valleys, but the state of being poor is usually there for good. With that in mind, I think it's safe to assume that someone who is poor during their reproductive years is probably going to be poor in their elderly years, too.

We all know that Social Security is not enough to live on in and of itself. It's meant as a supplement to pensions, retirement savings, etc. Social Security is a balm against literal starvation, but it is not a barrier to poverty, eviction, or the inability to pay the additional costs of being old.

So if the poor cease to have children--who's going to care for them when they're old? I assure you, even if the children of poor elderly people are poor themselves, they DO contribute to Mom and Dad's care. So are the taxpayers going to take over and make up the slack for the children that the elderly poor don't have? I'm not even considering retirement accounts or pensions here, because those are things that are relevant to the middle class--not the poor. We don't save. We can't. And our jobs aren't the sort that offer pensions.

If the taxpayers will end up footing the entire bill for the elderly poor who have no children to supplement their Social Security, then how has any tax money been saved? I mean, this is simple social reality--every generation helps to care for the one that came before it. If we remove (or even greatly reduce) the younger generation of low-income people, what will the consequences be? Greater taxpayer costs as we all pick up the slack and provide the percentage of their care that their children would have been providing, obviously, but what else?

The destruction of the communities where low-income people live and raise their families comes to mind first. I suppose that doesn't mean much to the middle-class, but to low-income workers, our communities are incredibly important to us. The poor in America still practice the barter system, for example. A mother might provide after-school childcare to a neighbor in exchange for free access to their washer and dryer because she can't afford to buy a W/D set herself. A father might trade his labor (fixing a leaky roof, for example) to a neighbor for fresh produce out of their garden because he doesn't have enough of a yard to plant a garden himself. Community is vital to the poor in ways that the middle-class could never understand. All classes occasionally barter, but only the poor do it because they HAVE to. The most valuable support resource that poor people have is each other. Failure to maintain (not even increase, just maintain) the population in those neighborhoods means fewer non-government resources for poor people to turn to when they need help. The mother who doesn't have a washer and dryer would end up needing more government assistance to get a set or pay for a laundromat. The mother with no childcare would have to rely on government assistance to pay for a daycare that she might or might not have transportation to get back and forth to. The neighbor with the leaky roof would need a government-funded emergency grant to get it fixed, and the father without room to plant a garden would need additional food assistance to get the veggies he can no longer trade for.

It's complicated, but can you understand what I'm saying? Poor people who no longer have a community to rely on will inevitably become more and more dependent upon (and therefore more and more vulnerable to the whims of) the government. It will cost everyone more money in the long-run, because the government (a.k.a., YOU) will have to cover the cost of the necessities that poor people are able to cheaply get or trade for within their own communities right now. Not just for the elderly poor, but for ALL of them. Private charity for groups like churches is nice but it's notoriously unreliable, and charity costs money too.

I know that some of you will protest, "But more poor people is NEVER a good thing!" As an ideal, this is true, but as a practicality it's not. The NEED that poor people have to rely upon each other as resources is something that exists right now, and has existed throughout the history of this country and most of humanity's history as well. It's not a brand-new thing. It's not an ideology. It's a tangible reality that's going on all around you, whether you're aware of it or not.

If we take away the ability of the poor to have children, then we take away the resources that the communities of poor people need in order to survive. People gripe about the costs of public assistance NOW; the nation would be screaming wildly at the costs of public assistance in a country where poor people could no longer barter effectively within their own communities due to depopulation. The tax costs of providing every cent of care for the elderly poor would be astronomical too, and might very well break the middle class, which is more connected to the working class than it cares to admit.

I'm all for discouraging poor parents from having too MANY children, but that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that poor people shouldn't have any children AT ALL, because "nobody should have children that they can't afford to care for themselves." This is a shortsighted and selfish idea to possess; an idea that assumes that the only consequence will be less poverty. I don't think that's true. I think that if the poor stop having any children at all, the costs of supporting the poor would shatter the middle class and then THEY'D become the "new poor."

If we want to decrease poverty, there are better, smarter ways to go about doing it than advocating to limit the reproductive rights of the poor. Raising the top income tax rate would help fund social programs, which in turn help to relieve poverty. A return of manufacturing jobs would probably help more than anything. Low-income people need jobs that actually pay enough to support their families without requiring college degrees, and that means factory and mill jobs. Increased community information about and access to birth control and abortion services, so that poor people can choose to have their children during one of their lives' economic "hills" rather than "valleys" would help, too. The most important thing to focus on is this: any over-arching plan to decrease the population of poor people MUST be large enough and well-funded enough to help the vast, vast majority of poor people at the same time, so that the reduction of community resources coincides with a reduction in the NEED for those resources. If we reduce the number of people within the poor community without reducing the NEED that poor people have for their poor-community resources, then we are going to inflict an enormous amount of suffering on both the poor AND the middle class.

I know this has been rather rambling--I'm thinking as I type--but I do want to point out one more thing. The idea that the working poor are insulated and have little to no effect on the middle and upper classes is a dangerous and false idea. We are ALL connected. The status of poor families affects the status of middle-class families affects the status of upper-class families, and so on. The only people who are "insulated" are the super-wealthy who have so much money that even an economic crash doesn't threaten their physical comfort; so much wealth that they could withdraw from society completely and be perfectly fine for the rest of their lives. You have to understand that whatever you inflict upon the poor has a direct effect on YOU as well, and that effect is not always what you thought it would be. A change as enormous and vital as the reproduction of an entire class of people is going to cause tidal waves of change in the middle class too, and if those changes are negative rather than positive, it would take generations--literally--to fix the situation and make it right. Generations of people suffering enormously because some of us fell prey to judgemental, short-sighted thinking and "simple" black-and-white answers that turned out to cause more problems than they solved.

America's middle class: we low-income people are not aliens, or animals, or disconnected faceless numbers. We are YOU--just with less money and different resource priorities. We love our children as much as you love yours, and need them perhaps even more because we are less able to stand alone than you are. Work WITH us to decrease suffering. Don't inflict things upon us "for our own good." Poor does not equal stupid, no matter WHAT certain people say. Consider that maybe, just maybe, WE might be the ones who know best what's "for our own good." A healthy working class is vital to the nation that is literally built upon our backs. Compromising the structural integrity of the working class could be a disaster for everyone, including you.

[Orrex]

1. K/R

[timeforpeace]

117. What happened to LBJ's War On Poverty? Did we lose?

[Zoeisright]

150. Yes.

The repukes killed our ammo, and yes, we lost.

[Lagomorph]

221. Well, there is that whole 12 trillion in debt thing...

...and ten times that in future obligations, the vast majority of it in the form of entitlements, all of it with congressional approval. Just saying.

[liberalmike27]

245. I always like to say

You really can't know if we won, or lost, unless you could see a predictive future of how things would be if LBJ hadn't at least tried. I personally think things would have melted down to our current situation much more quickly.

I don't think any reproductive rights should be purposely limited by the government. I think poor people should do it themselves, to not subject their kids to the kind of gut-wrenching poverty that is to come. There is some advantage to the poor not having kids also, in that there is nothing rich folks like more than having plenty of poor folks hovering around, to fight their wars, and do their grunt work for next to nothing. Less people means more jobs, means more pay, and in a way is a solution in and of itself.

But you are right, in that we don't really have to choose to have 60 million or so poor, or relatively poor folks, and the complimentary few hundred billionaires, the thousand or so with ten to one-hundred million. And believe me, the two figures are related, and are a choice society makes, albeit, I believe, due to our media's brainwashing. They figured out during the fifties that anti-communism was the way to go, and that the media was going to do their job for them. After generations, you also have the effect of already having a couple of generations brainwashed, that will then pass their brainwashing down to subsequent generations. Job done, right? I hate socialism. I never met a war I didn't like. I repeat everything Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly says. Yep, job well done.

It is a hard choice, a poor choice, but with money flowing into Congress to make fixes to health care, not with single-payer, but with "You are GOING to buy insurance, no matter how many LCDs, or IPods you may have wanted to buy, which by the way weren't manufactured here, so that's even more poverty.

So, we're left with a hard choice. I chose to not have any kids. I could've, no, I'm not one of those guys who says that, that couldn't find a mate, it was a conscious decision, one that I do not regret, even though the thought of having a successful kid to bother in my old age might be appealing. But the thought of introducing a kid into a wage-slave environment, or corporatism run amok, well, that's just a much stronger feeling. The obvious miasma of dystopia is upon us. It's hard to see the way out. I'm feeling a little Green Party, but then what does that get? It gets republicans elected. Once again, we are left with the lesser of two evils. Sucks.

[Lars39]

2. Excellent OP, Lyric!

I especially like this paragraph: "Poor people who no longer have a community to rely on will inevitably become more and more dependent upon (and therefore more and more vulnerable to the whims of) the government. It will cost everyone more money in the long-run, because the government (a.k.a., YOU) will have to cover the cost of the necessities that poor people are able to cheaply get or trade for within their own communities right now. Not just for the elderly poor, but for ALL of them. Private charity for groups like churches is nice but it's notoriously unreliable, and charity costs money too."

[liberalmike27]

247. Yea, I get a kick out of that too

When people say "Well, you can go to a church and get help."

It's like the most fucking stupid thing you can say. It's like saying "It's cold today, so there is no global climate change." It shows a complete lack of understanding of the scale of the problem, and how much it'd take to fix it, how completely inadequate churches would be to the task.

Unless you've got a few hundred thousand in the bank, and a good job, with no reason to believe they are going to send it away, I'd suggest you don't have any kids. It'll give you more time to yourself, and if you do have problems, then you'll at least have only yourself to worry about.

[sandnsea]

3. There should be a class of workers

who do nothing but work for the elite. That's really what the poor shouldn't have children amounts to.

Most of them are poor because their jobs don't pay enough to support their children. If you want them to support their own children, then you have to insist employers pay the labor costs and not the taxpayer.

But you can't tell 50% of the country that they can't have children because they'll always need some kind of assistance, sooner or later. It's inhuman.

[Lyric]

6. I agree with you.

I tried to stay away from arguments based too much on pathos because that never ends well. If I say that it's "inhuman," someone will inevitably come back with a "Well tough luck. Life's not fair." pithy line and that shuts down discussion.

I have found that if you want to change minds, it's best to point out negative consequences that people might not have thought of or considered before. All I want is for the people who think that "poor people breeding" is the problem to consider that maybe the problem is not the "breeding"--the problem is the poverty. Replenishing the community helps to relieve poverty. Poor people don't want to face an old age with no pension, no retirement savings, AND no children to help them get by financially. To advocate such a thing is not only cruel, but incredibly costly for ALL of us.

[pitohui]

64. lyric, in the usa we have this thing called social security

middle class people of my generation don't have pensions, and mostly don't have retirement savings either, but it's still a shitty thing to do to ask your daughter (it's always a daughter) to give her one and only life to be yr slave during your old age

social security is NOT incredibly costly to us, actually, it pays for itself and often is borrowed against for other things in gov't as well

but having children for social security is cruel and evil, and it primarily preys upon the female children, who are born into this type of unpaid slavery

anyone who truly had a child to keep them in old age and planned this from the beginning, considering our lifespans today, is planning to steal most of that child's life -- it's a horrid, horrible thing to do and just plain evil

i've had relatives who lived into their 90s and 100s, if we were expected to take in those relatives, then we would lose our entire active lifespan

don't bring me into this world at all, if your plan is to put me here to be your slave


i don't believe most poor people scheme as you believe they scheme, i think the opposite, most poor people i've observed who are having too many babies have cognitive, mental, or emotional problems and it's obvious that they are incapable of much in the way of scheming or planning -- but if they did scheme as you suggest, ugh, just...ugh...what you are saying about the poor is that they're just plain hateful and don't hope or wish for better EVEN FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN...sorry that's just crazy

[Lyric]

71. Spoken by someone who proudly proclaimed that she didn't actually READ the OP.

Bravo!

[Hello_Kitty]

108. I did read it and she's absolutely right. She has you pegged. eom

[Hello_Kitty]

109. Spot on.

And this notion of hers that poor people are taking care of their elderly relatives is absurd. Maybe they can do it for a time before major health problems or need for assistance set in but I can tell you that the state run nursing homes in my city are full up with indigent old people. Who are left there to languish and die, just like their wealthier counterparts in the nicer private homes. The OP is like some bizarro alternate Grapes of Wrath story. I'm not even sure if I believe her life situation is what she says it is. It all sounds a bit too pat.

[truedelphi]

124. Have you ever lived in a hispanic neighborhood?

I have, and this is not to argue whether unlimited immigration is good or bad, just to state what I observed:
as hard working and money pinching as every one of the families that I knew were, the first thing they tried to do was to get their parents here, especially if they were frail elderly.

And they cared for those parents in their homes, not through some nursing care set up.

It is only a sub section of the Anglo part of the population that throws their elderly into small run down apartments and lets them rot there. Or sends them off to the nursing home gulag.

[Hello_Kitty]

128. Right. Until those parents develop kidney failure. Or require 24 hour skilled nursing care.

Then they get sent to the state home just like every other group's elderly. Sorry, but families can't do everything.

[hippywife]

255. But it is true that ethnic families,

regardless of which they are or their circumstances, do everything they can to care for their elderly in their homes. They have a deep and abiding respect for their elderly that many anglos in this country have lost.

[Hello_Kitty]

267. Um, what pray tell is an "ethnic family"?

Is that a nationality? Did I miss the memo that stereotypes are okay as long as they are "positive"?

[Le Taz Hot]

213. Uh, HUH?????

"It is only a sub section of the Anglo part of the population that throws their elderly into small run down apartments and lets them rot there. Or sends them off to the nursing home gulag."

My uncle is currently in a nursing home (hopefully, temporarily) and there are LOTS and LOTS of minorities there. That was a disgustingly racist remark AND wholly inaccurate. I'll tell you in advance, I'm doing something I rarely do -- alert the Mods. I know it won't do a damned bit of good but I'm doing it anyway. (Fuck! I can't believe I just read that.)

[Hello_Kitty]

235. Oh but dontcha know that ethnic stereotyping is okee dokee

When you are stereotyping Hispanics and other immigrant groups for the "work ethic" and amazing tolerance of poverty and exploitation.

[Le Taz Hot]

249. Yeah, I wasn't even going to touch that one.

:hide:

[truedelphi]

296. I happen to be a white person. I happen to

Think that overall, the constant influx of immigrants into the USA was not all a good thing.

I was reporting my observations. I wasn't making an ethnic based remark. In fact, my white nursing school teacher made the same observation several times during class time.

If I mentioned that my dad's Army buddy from WWII was a Harlem Globetrotter in the fifties, and you said, "Glad to hear your white dad made friends with someone of another race," Is that racist? Or is it more like common sense --Gee in the fifties the only people on that team were black?

[Hello_Kitty]

305. Oh bullcrap. You weren't "just making an observation".

You larded it with a massive honking value judgment - implying that people from other ethnic groups care about their relatives more than "a sub-set of Anglos" do.

[truedelphi]

321. People from other ethnic groups, especially really well off

Americans, do not know about death. They are uncomfortable with aging.

Most Americans regardless of color, religion, background do love their relatives and want them to be comfortable and happy. But Americans that are caught up in our society value system, years inside school rooms, then years inside corporate cubicles, do not know how to deal with death. They are also scared of normal childhood exuberrance - ask yourself why the "Suicide allies" inside our country are pretty much confined to very affluent sections of the nation.

You might wanna pick up a copy of the "Nanny Diary" to catch a glimpse of what it is like to be a caregiver in today's USA.

Although the book centered on caregiving for kids, it mirrors things I was feeling taking care of the elderly. Until the "Greatest Generation" crowd was replaced by the "Affluent, we have ALWAYS had it all" generation, I really enjoyed taking care of elderly. But with the shift in genereations, the emphasis from the children who hired me was more about seeing that Granpa wore his Ralph Lauren on Mondays and Wednesdays, and his Gucci on Tuesday and Thursdays, than about real nursing care (and heaven help me if I goofed it up.)

"Affluenza" might be another good book to read.

[Romulox]

320. What's an "Anglo"?

:hi:

[truedelphi]

323. Hi there -

If you wanna know what I mean by WASP these days, checking out either of these books will explain the matter fully -
"The Nanny Diaries" or "Affluenza".

Hope your Holiday Weekend was fun.

[Romulox]

324. You didn't say "wasp", you said "Anglo". Since most hispanics I've met can speak English

this term is puzzling--really, it's like calling a Mexican a "Spaniard", if you think about it. :shrug:

[whathehell]

217. In not a few, cases, the old people are taking care of their poor

children's kids.

[hippywife]

253. I can assure you that her situation is exactly

what she says it is. She has more right to speak to this issue than most people on this board because she lives it every single day and still maintains her heart. Lesser people couldn't deal with what she has to on a daily basis without the bitterness she has been able to hold off.

And, guess what, I work in a very, very nice private pay retirement community. In our nursing facility, we do take people who can only pay through the Medicaid system. There are still people out there that care and do what they can so not everyone ends up in a state run hospital. I don't even think such an animal still exists in our state at all. If they do, I surely haven't heard of them.

And as far as Lyric is concerned, back the fuck off. She is well loved and supported in this community because she is a truly lovely and genuine person. I would address this also to the person you were responding to but he/she is already on my ignore list. Why don't you join him/her? m'K?

[Lyric]

274. Oh my.

That brought tears to my eyes, quite literally. Thank you so much. I'm not sure what ugliness you were responding to, as I have that person on Ignore, but this was probably the kindest thing I've ever seen anyone say about me here.

:hug:
:loveya:

[hippywife]

278. Sweetie, you don't even want to know

the ugliness that bitch is spewing. I've put her and another person in this thread on ignore. If they can't see what it is you are trying to say, quite articulately, not rambling I might add, then they are assuredly in the wrong place.

I usually don't come out to GD anymore because of this kind of bullshit. It was only your thread on the greatest that drew me. I'm always happy to hear what you have to say and know that you are well. I always have your back because I respect you more than just about anyone else around here.

You are missed in other parts of this board, you know. :hug:

[Le Taz Hot]

212. Thank you!

After reading the the "whoopie" responses I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought :wtf:? I chose not to have children for many reasons and I can remember in my 20's and 30's declaring I wasn't going to have children people asking me, "But who will take care of you when you're old?" It seemed such an incredible question. THAT'S why you have kids? To take care of you when you're old? Really???

[Hello_Kitty]

240. Self-serving tripe like this OP always gets praise and recs on DU.

Because she's talking about poor people, presenting herself as a poor person, and acting outraged about something the "affluent" are allegedly trying to do to them (in this case it's nothing), DUers are falling over themselves to cheer her. You and I both know that if she identified as a middle class or wealthy person and made the exact same statement - that poor people should rely on their kids instead of the government to provide for them - she would be excoriated, and rightly so. But no, because of who she says she is and because some liberals love to romanticize poverty it's "OMG this is the best thing I've ever read on DU!"

[Bettie]

230. Many people care for their elderly parents because

they love them and want to give back some of the care they received as children.

My parents are still pretty self sufficient, but I know that in time, I will need to help them out with stuff.

My in-laws are older and we all take turns helping them out with whatever they need. Yes, more falls upon the shoulders of the siblings who live closer (my DH's brother lives only a few miles away and ends up helping with errands and repairs on their house more than those of us who live farther away).

The point is that most parents don't ask...their children do these things out of love and it doesn't feel like slavery.

[treestar]

287. But wasn't the parent the slave when you were a baby?

We're helpless at the beginning and the end. In the middle we take care of those at either end.

[Hello_Kitty]

293. Apples and oranges.

And even as newborns most of us didn't require the type of round-the-clock nursing care that many people in their 90s do. My own mother died in a nursing home at the relatively young age of 66. We had to put her into a care facility because of health conditions she developed that there was no way any of us were equipped to deal with. Can you intubate or put an IV or catheter in someone? If so, great. I sure as hell can't. Even those wondrous immigrants with their stereotypically awesome work ethic and love for their families that we heartless and elitist Anglos can't even approximate often find themselves hard-pressed to deal with things like kidney dialysis and advanced Alzheimer's disease. I'm pretty familiar with the indigent long term care system here in AZ and trust me, there are plenty of Abuelas in state run or Medicaid eligible care facilities.

[EndersDame]

8. The elite are the only ones who deserve to have the warmth and love that a family brings

according to some people here. I think that most on this board do not live in the same reality as most of the human race

[jwirr]

18. They will never tell us that because that is where cheap labor and

armies come from. They may make us feel like we should not have children but bottom line they need us to produce workers and soldiers.

As to the rest of the article I agree. I am poor because I took care of a severely disabled daughter for 45 years instead of placing her in more expensive institutions. I get minimum social security and barely make it with the added supplemental. It is my children who make up for the lack. I live with them and help them with their housing costs. If not for that I would be homeless. Not all poverty is generational.

[anonymous171]

25. +10000000000000000. Save'd. nt

[fishwax]

37. nicely said

:thumbsup:

[HipChick]

4. My parents were poor, I'm glad they didn't decide NOT to have me

[Maru Kitteh]

58. Same here. I had awesome parents. We didn't have "stuff"

But we had our dignity, thank you very much. I am grateful for the lessons a life of thrift taught me, and I'm glad I'm able to help my mother now.

[varelse]

161. Same here

most human beings are born into poverty - this has not changed for thousands of years. The well-to-do and middle class in the richest nations are, ironically, the planet-wreckers and resource-consumers.

[NikolaC]

223. Same Here

My parents grew up in families that were poor in the West Indies. They came from loving and hard working families, sacrificed, got educations and came to the U.S. To this day my heroes are my proud, strong parents, who worked damn hard for what they had. I know that most don't make it out of poverty, but I think that it's so wrong to look down on people because they are poor and have children. You don't know their circumstances, who they are as people and parents, or who their children could eventually become. Personally, I agree with what the OP is saying, and I find the view that poor people should not procreate to be incredibly condescending and elitist.

[KamaAina]

254. So were Bill Clinton's.

'Nuf ced.

[Warpy]

5. Comfortable people who sniff at the breeding habits of the poor

are blinkered, pig ignorant bastards who don't realize how literally their lives depend on such people.

Poor people do all the unskilled and semiskilled grunt work that keeps their rotten lives together, from washing their dirty dishes in a restaurant to picking up their garbage at curbside (and oh, how the comfortable bitch about separating out those recyclables!), to dry cleaning their clothes and fixing their cars and doing every other thing they won't dirty their own hands with while they sniff at the people who do.

The world would go on as before if the comfortable were no longer with us. The world would cease to function if the poor were not.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Yep. They should obligingly churn out more serfs to be exploited.

While comfortable "progressives" like you pat them paternalistically on their heads and congratulate yourselves for being such altruistic mensches because you wax emotional over their hard lives over the Internets.

[Fire1]

26. Trash collectors and auto mechanics make damn good

money in Michigan.

[etherealtruth]

29. More than I do in the field of "science and engineering"

... and you know what .... they deserve it!

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Yes they do. The tangible results of their efforts are usually evident immediately.

The result of their work not being done is evident immediately as well.

[blueamy66]

35. Just interested in your definition of "comfortable".

Thanks.

[etherealtruth]

39. This probaly doesn't hold true since the economy "tanked"

Auto Mechanic salaries Michigan:
http://www.salarylist.com/states-automobile-mechanic-jobs-salary-in-michigan.htm

VS

http://www.ihireenvironmental.com/t-Environmental-Scientist-s-Michigan-salary.html?Submit=True&Register=True

[EndersDame]

7. Poor people Breed apparently Only the fortunate are allowed to have love and family

I have no desire to have children whatsoever but find this attitude absolutely disgusting. I can't believe that there are some people here that think that poor people should not have the love and warmth that a family brings

[Orrex]

49. Poor people should be punished for being poor at every opportunity.

Haven't you heard the meme?

And they aren't allowed to have cellphones or computers, according to some here @ DU and elsewhere.

[Lyric]

54. Or possess the ability to express themselves articulately.

Otherwise they don't "count," or so it would seem to some people here who persist in the idiotic, stereotyped notion that poor = stupid.

:eyes:

Very frustrating. And insulting, I might add. Thanks for standing up, Orrex. :hug:

[varelse]

103. Or pets

or soda, candy, junk food, cigarrettes or any form of "demon alcohol". :eyes:

[Orrex]

118. That's right.

Bread and water and a cardboard box is all that anyone needs to rise from poverty to become a captain of industry.

I saw it in a movie and read it in a book, so it must be true.


Here's to bootstraps!

[bobbolink]

142. Thank you for saying what needs to be said, I only hope that those of whom you speak have to walk

in my shoes someday, and be the target of the ugliness they have perpetrated on ME.

Again, thank you.

[unabelladonna]

55. my husband and i chose to have one child

i do resent people having more children than they can afford to take care of, whether they're democrats or republicans.

[Lyric]

60. Fine. Then enjoy the tax increases that will be necessary

to take care of childless poor people when they're old, as well as the poor adults as they lose their community resources and have no alternative left save for government handouts. I'm sure that'll cost MUCH less.

Oh--and welcome to DU.

[Pool Hall Ace]

89. But having children does not ensure having care when you are old

no more than not having children means you will be a burden on society.

My mother had three children, but I handled the majority of care when she became infirm. I have one brother who is disabled, and the other brother, who exudes all the warmth of Dick Cheney, opted to spend minimal time with her. I am the youngest, so it is a good thing that my mother didn't stop at just two kids. So much for a "warm and loving" family.

I chose not to have children, but I have tried to plan wisely for my future to try and avoid becoming a burden to taxpayers.

[EndersDame]

197. A burden on taxpayers ?Is that what human beings and family are reduced too?

I am sorry for you. My immediate family although poor are tightly knit and an abundant resource of love strength and support.

[Pool Hall Ace]

225. It is what *I* would be reduced to if I didn't plan carefully.

My disabled brother is my best friend and provides a great deal of emotional support (and there is no price you can put on that). My oldest brother is very wealthy, but ironically, he was not available to care for our mother because he is too busy raising his own children.

Because he no longer speaks to me, he is not "there" for me in any sense of the word.

[femrap]

157. My girlfriend had 4 children....

and none of them help her. What is your point. Have kids so if you're old, you can guilt them into taking care of you?

[EndersDame]

199. I dont think that is the point Poor people have just as much right to love and family as rich people

I am sorry for your girlfriend and her kids.

[mntleo2]

229. They pay for our Social Security, fight our wars, infrastructure, etc

...children are our future. It is more global than just about "me."

Unless we can find a way to dig up that plumbing line with our canes, or change our own adult diapers when we can no longer do it, or drive ourselves to the doctor when we've gone blind, fix our roads, and run our country when we are too old to do it, someone from a previous generation will do it, so the next generation, whether our own kids or someone else's WILL care for us. They all will also pay our Social Security as we have paid for the previous generations. If we spend our lives considering child raising as merely "taking" from society it is no wonder our children grow up taking too, because they have not been taught they are precious and valued for the future they hold. After all what good were they except some millstone around adult's necks?

Believe me, I had the same attitudes, and bought the crap that the "only" way to contribute to my society while raising my kids was saying, "Do you want fries with that?" This was wrong, wrong, wrong! They became secondary to work that, truthfully was *not* my family and *not* anyone to put my faith and expectations into because well, when your employer is done with you they just throw you away and get a "new" one. If I had had the encouragement and the support to put the same effort into my family as I have done for paid work, I believe we would all be better off.

Without becoming a multi-millionaire, none of these things can anyone do alone. Raising kids is the most important thing you can do for your country, if you want it to continue after you are gone. While choosing not to have kids is considered noble, it is merely taking care of yourself, and while this may be a fine thing, the truth is somebody younger than you, whether you pay them or not, WILL be the ones to love and care for you when you can no longer do it.

The saddest part about all this is that, people seem to think care giving is not work. It is consider to be like some sort of hobby or something. The only way to "contribute" to our society is to work for some corporate CEO so he gets richer. Meanwhile poor families languish and struggle because, well they are not "contributing" like that rich CEO and his worker bees do. We all need to support ourselves and our families, but the problem with this thinking is, while we work and consume all that energy, resources and fleeting paycheck, we are merely leaving pollution, depleted resources, no community support, and eventually experience our own poverty and illness because of that work. Our best and most hopeful "renewable" resource is the future generations.

Care giving of our children is doing something for our future. Care giving for our elders is honoring our past for the work they have done. Neither are well supported in this country while other more civilized nations honor this work and support it because they know and recognize our need to go on. They are not just about "me" they see that this work not only takes care of "me" but "we." Paid or not, if we want decent, educated, caring people to care for us, then we need to support care giving so that the next generation will have the moral incentives to take care of our past and future and continue to create a good society where all benefit because of the "other."

Cat in Seattle

[PatSeg]

241. Well said

"Care giving of our children is doing something for our future. Care giving for our elders is honoring our past for the work they have done." And you are right that neither are supported as a rule in our society, but giving one's soul to a soulless corporation is.

When people reach the end of their lives, it is doubtful that they will regret not putting in more overtime, but more likely that they did not spend more time with loved ones.

[varelse]

258. Only money seems to be recognized

having money, not necessarily even earning it, is the benchmark of human worthiness for some. This attitude is a deadly, contagious disease with which "our" neocons are infecting other nations. It's like an evangelical movement of greed, shortsightedness, and selfishness.

[femrap]

314. Care giving is the hardest work of all....

and our patriarchal society deems this work worthless. Our culture states that if you want to be a Care Giver, you better find a rich husband (I don't see many male care givers, do you?) who will provide the Care Giver with shelter and food.

All work that I deem important is deemed 'voluntary' by our patriarchal society. Teaching? They are basically poorly paid. Child Care Workers? Lucky to get $8/hour.

Investment Banker? The moon's the limit.

Get it?

Plus....the world doesn't need more people....resources are limited. I believe strongly in Family Planning.

[JANdad]

102. Says you that lives in West Palm Beach

Must be rough with the maid and the gardner and all...lol.

BTW...How is Rush doing these days?

[unabelladonna]

152. i love it here (and do NOT miss the NY winters)

but rush and i travel in different circles and he lives in a $50 million abomination by the sea (and i do no)

[pitohui]

66. the love and warmth that family brings? w ho are you kidding?

you don't want children for yourself because you know damn well that "love and warmth" are not what family brings when the family is in a hell of suffering

i was born w. a genetic disorder, and because of the costs and the constant illnesses, not to mention what i experienced in public because i had a visible deformity -- "love and warmth" were not what my family experienced, what my family experienced was a nightmare in hell

i spent my entire childhood praying to die or to somehow be killed

there is no "love and warmth" where a father can't provide for his child, and where a mother is stared in public because her child is a screaming freak

it's easy to romanticize "love and warmth of family" when you don't have to bother w. actually experiencing this so-called "love and warmth"

the number one cause of the break-up of a marriage is financial troubles -- even more than cheating, even more than ANYTHING

without money enough to create a decent home, there is no hell on earth like a family

you know this in your heart, i know it from hard experience

soooo often IME poor people aren't having kids for "love and warmth," they're having too many kids because the resources for safe, inexpensive abortions have been put out of reach for women who don't own cars -- it's as simple as that

don't pretend suffering is romantic or that suffering should go on forever

if men were the ones carrying all these babies, like the woman said, abortion would be a sacrament...

[EndersDame]

72. My Mom and two siblings provided much love and warmth when we were living in a motel room

My dad was a dead beat but WE survived and strived I think in part because we are such a tight knit family. We called ourselves the four musketeers.I am sorry you had such a bad experience but for most of the human race draw strength and love from their families.I love my family. I do not want to have kids for my own personal reasons (I dont care to discuss them on an internet message board)but I know I will enjoy having nieces and nephews

[Hekate]

80. You are like my childless friends: most of them appreciate & have a relationship with kids...

... and most of them are childless by choice. They had the means to not have babies and the wisdom to know their own hearts, so they didn't. Considering that I met most of these women when I was a struggling, working, single mom of two small kids (who I did want to have), I appreciate my friends' attitude more than I can say.

Hekate

[EndersDame]

94. Working Single Moms are my Heroes!

Seriously y'all are like Wonderwoman ! I worked with several women who not only worked and went to school but also found time to take care of and nurture really cool and bright kiddos . I wouldnt rule out having kids entirely but right now for my own reasons I shall remain childless. Anyway I think alot of the negative posters have led severely privileged lives

[imdjh]

9. You hit it in paragraph 10 - the complaint is mostly about those with several children.

And there are different kinds of poor. The stereotype of Irish immigrant poverty is of a family that is poor but self sufficient, but poor largely BECAUSE of the size of the family. If Papa is a laborer and Mama is a laundress while grandma takes care of baby Brian and Baby Mary who will eventually do well in high school and be accepted to Catholic University on scholarship. It's when Papa and Mama are trying to feed, clothe, and shelter, six other kids as well that they run into trouble.

Fast forwarding into the present, we're seeing single parents with four children who were poor when they started, and have been on a patchwork of welfare programs the whole time. We see young people who are guaranteeing a fucked up life for themselves and probably their kids. Those poor Irish folks didn't go into the baby business at 14 or 15 years old. So we have some serious problems here.

One of the biggest mistakes we have made and continue to make is to entrench poverty in certain neighborhoods and create poverty zones. These are not wonderful places where cooperative living takes on new meaning, they are not enclaves of urban middle class poor (genteel poor if you will) full of people who post on bulletin boards in articulate sentences. They are downward spirals which institutionalize poverty, entrench it, keep the poor ever further away from the commerce, the work, the good example. They also fuck up the real estate market and lead to the kind of lock-out that we have seen in some places. If the real estate market is only allowed to go up (through wealth and poverty zoning) then eventually most people are locked out.

[Lyric]

16. Nice attempt to poison the well.

However, if I am articulate, it's because I was fortunate enough to be born with a gift--simple luck, not inherent superiority. My ability to write well does not lessen the validity of my viewpoint or the truth of my experiences and knowledge about poverty.

Community DOES matter. And if a poor family has 6 kids, my first thought is not to blame/criticize THEM. Most poor people don't DO that unless there's some outside reason for it--either religion as a barrier to using birth control, or a nation full of complacently-comfortable middle-class people who see no need to fight hard for abortion and birth control access...in a health care plan, for example?

I think that the loss of community (mostly BECAUSE of the loss of jobs) is primarily to blame for the "bad" poor neighborhoods you spoke of. Those places are examples of exactly what I'm talking about. Those neighborhoods were NOT always like that. They have become that way because people are fleeing, and the only ones left behind are those who can't afford to leave, and/or have nowhere else to go. When that loss of community occurs, when people lose the resources that their parents relied on, then crimes of desperation begin and the middle-class panics. They blame and gripe about the "bad neighborhoods" that THEIR complacency and lack of concern for the working class helped to make that way. Gee, imagine that.

[ipaint]

10. Let the culling begin and always remain here.

http://www.brettonwoods.org/members/

The architects of the poverty and wage slave classes worldwide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7099339

[EFerrari]

11. Lincoln, Lula da Silva, Tavis Smiley, Alice Walker, Lyndon Johnson

Sammy Davis Jr., Dennis Kucinich, The Marx Brothers, Truman Capote.

[FirstLight]

12. Your last paragraph nails it for me...

"We love our children as much as you love yours, and need them perhaps even more because we are less able to stand alone than you are."


You know, as hard as it IS being a single mom, and as hard as it has been to try and 'get a life' after an abusive mariage, poverty, and the lack of education & resources...my kids certainly offer me more emotional support than from the world at large. We may know we are poor, but at least we have a warm house & food.... and eachother.

And let's not forget that many of us, even though we have no proofe we will ever get to own our own house or have a stable career...some of us never stop striving for it. And that will eventually give my kids more to look for in themselves, and more of a sense of hard work...not entitlement.
I came from a home similar to Michelle Obama's, middle class normal 1960s-1970s upbringing.
and I made some choices that put me in a different LIFE at a very young age, rather than end up in Harvard.

My dad is a repub now (old age and greed overcame him..) I wonder how he can still love me and care for me as much as he does (putting up storm windows for us, bringing us scrap wood for fire), when he is so against MY KIND
He doesn't understand that we live in a very different WORLD than his Easy American Dream of the 1950s-1960s. He made his money and was able to buy property and make smart decisions, investments... NOW, we just live from hand to mouth and scrape to get by...
My life as a single mom with little education is a cosmos away from his as a WASP male in the 50's with a degree in radio & electronics and a service record in the Korean War. (shit, ecven our current vets have NOTHING like what our vets used to get in the 50s)

We are in a different world now, and the poor may actually end up being at the cutting edge of the curve as we enter peak oil, environmental challenges and a debilitating economy. We know how to fix stuff ourselves, how to make due with less, how to come together and assist one another with barter & trade...! Watch, the meek really will inherit the earth ;)

[XanaDUer]

13. Kicked & recommended

nt.

[PatSeg]

14. I've been "poor" most of my adult life

and I raised two incredible children, who are productive members of society. I can't imagine my life without them and yes, as I get older, they are an important support system for me. Without my children, I would have been poor in spirit as well as materially.

Its interesting to remember that Bill Clinton's mother was poor and so was Barack Obama's.

[Hannah Bell]

23. obama's mother wasn't poor. never.

[FirstLight]

183. uh, yea they were...

part of his 'story' is that they had to use food stamps and she had to live with her parents for a while because times were tough...

[Hannah Bell]

208. uh, no, they weren't. you may buy the phoney story, but no one who knows the background would.

"poor" is not the banker's daughter moving back home after her divorce. she got food stamps while enrolled at the university of hawaii & getting help from her parents. you may find it difficult to believe, but two of my college roommates got food stamps (no kids), & both their fathers were engineers at boeing. this wasn't unusual in the 60s & 70s.

obama's mother was never poor. her background was more privileged than the typical u of h student.

[etherealtruth]

15. Wonderful post

The idea should be to provide opportunity, education and resources to the less affluent ... not to impose judgments that essentially blame them for their lot in life and not assume that because of their economic status that they are "less than"

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Shorter Lyric: Children are retirement plans.

Really, that was several paragraphs of emotion-laden rhetoric but it really boils down to that. It's such a common viewpoint that it rarely gets examined but if you really think about it, it's pretty fucked up. Bringing children into the world as sacrifices to the Gods of Commerce in the hopes that you'll be cared for in your old age.

BTW, an economy based on endless population growth, requiring ever larger generations to replace the generations that precede them is hella unsustainable. Maybe it's time to come up with alternative ways to care for retirees?

[Lyric]

20. If you find the idea of children being a resource

so offensive, then you must REALLY hate Social Security, considering that SS is built upon precisely that premise.

Individual people don't consider their children "resources," they consider them children. Family. Loved ones. I was speaking from a sociological standpoint, not a personal one. I'm sure you knew that, so why would you deliberately misinterpret me like that? Just to score some cheap "point", as if this is a game?

Maybe your life is comfy enough to treat others like they're game pieces on a board, but mine isn't. I'm interested in serious discussion, not verbal backgammon.

As for your last point--as I said, I'm not talking about INCREASING the population. I'm talking about maintaining it until we figure out a way to provide poverty relief to everyone at once, so that we don't cause more suffering than we relieve. Did you actually read the entire post?

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Your romantic illusions do not change the fact that the resources of the world are finite.

Your special gifted snowflake miracle children consume resources and add to pollution. Even if population growth stabilizes in the next few decades we still have far too many humans consuming and polluting far too much.

As for your last point--as I said, I'm not talking about INCREASING the population. I'm talking about maintaining it until we figure out a way to provide poverty relief to everyone at once, so that we don't cause more suffering than we relieve. Did you actually read the entire post?

The best way to alleviate poverty is to create fewer poor people. I'm sorry, it just is. Honest to god, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to people on a progressive message board. The struggle for reproductive choice was not just about female independence and autonomy (though it was a lot about that) it was about liberating women from the misery and drudgery of baby after baby and the - pay attention - poverty that went along with it.

[DonCoquixote]

50. You obviously did not read or understand the op

The point is, these large families are often the ONLY resource the poor have, period. The government does not want to help them, and nor does the average upper middle class type that populates most of the influential types of society (including DU). Of course, we need reproductive rights, which include, and are NOT limited to: abortion, birth control, decent pre-natal care AND affordable day-care. However, whenever someone says "people X should not breed" they are also ensuring that a group of rivals gets eliminated or limited.

Perfect example, the Chinese and Indians. It is a crapshoot which one of these shall become the new superpower. China has it's one birth policy, but, oddly enough, they are allowing their middle class to have more than one child, but they are actively doing forced sterilizations on Muslims. India is not forcing abortions, BUT, the caste system ensures that certain castes live and grow up to steal that job in America, wherever other classes provide cadavers for Medical schools. The minute you say a certain class should breed less, you are playing with eugenics, because of course, the dominant social class will ensure that THEY do not do the shrinking.

Last but not least, I do notice that the people who want to control breeding oddly enough are not sterilized. Just an observation.

[Scout]

92. i'm sterilized ... i have not reproduced ... and i am all for people voluntarily

and through peer pressure controlling their damn breeding.

children are NOT a retirement plan ... those who use them as such are the selfish, stupid ones. there is no guarantee your crotch-dropping will care for you, or anyone else, in our old age.

[bobbolink]

143. Thank you. I'm very glad to know that at least one narcissist will NOT inflict that trait on

yet another generation.

[Hello_Kitty]

148. Unfortunately, the generations of narcissists who bring children into the world as retirement plans

Will go on.

Again, I'm puzzled as to why "I'm glad you won't reproduce!" is seen as a burning insult against people who have made the choice not to reproduce. Um, you're right, we shouldn't reproduce. That's why we're not doing it. :shrug:

[bobbolink]

315. We're tired of people who think THEIR opinion should rule the world.

You have been extremely aggressive with your judgmental attitudes in this thread, and I wasn't posting to you for that very reason.

[Shell Beau]

327. In this thread??? How about EVERY thread!

:rofl:

[DonCoquixote]

192. Bobbolink

I knew you would show up. Isn't it funny to see all these "liberals" talk about the poor as if they were some vermin that needed to be bred out of existence?

Yes Kitty, I want more contraception, free abortions, and for that matter, real sex ed, real day care, real prenatal care, but frankly, if that was offered to the masses, the upper middle classes would howl like wolves!

Yes, overpopulation can make for poverty, but also know this. Whenever there has been real, solid social change, it was NOT just the Middle Class that did the heavy lifting. Gandhi may have been middle class, but without hordes of the classes below him, his changes would have been crushed, especially since most of the upper middle class tends to sympathize more with the ruling powers. Hate the poor masses all you want to, but if you want to provide a real challenge to the wealthy, you will need their numbers, their muscle, and their sacrifice, and you will NOT get that without giving them your respect.

[Hello_Kitty]

236. Oh FFS.

Where are you getting the idea that I "hate the poor masses"? Because I happen to disagree with the OP and think the idea of deliberately bringing children into the world as retirement plans is appalling? Jesus God, I've never seen as much straw as has been flung in this thread. It really should be declared a fire hazard.

[bobbolink]

316. The hatred that ooozes in this thread is truly incredible.

And yet those posters howl with indignation when they hear us being called "elitists".

There is no other word for the superiority trip some of these "progressives" tout.

Thank you for your reasoned approach. :hi:

Sadly, I think it is the proverbial pearls before swine.

[Shell Beau]

326. "crotch-dropping"? How disgusting.

There are so many other things wrong with your statement that I will just leave it at that. I can't believe someone would refer to a woman having a baby as crotch-dropping.

[Hello_Kitty]

121. You misunderstand. I think ALL classes of people should breed less.

I don't think Michael Douglas should be having three generations of kids so he can prove his virility to the world. And my virulent disagreement with "baby bonuses" and tax credits to middle class parents to incentivize their breeding is a topic for another thread. As for poor people, I'm rather astonished to see "progressives" ignoring the obvious truth that adding more mouths to feed to your household does NOT help to alleviate your poverty.

[Bettie]

231. Tax credits are an incentive to have kids?

Um, no.

You do realize that the tax credits for children don't even begin to cover the cost of raising that child, right?

Look, people need to be responsible in their choices, but people love their kids, something that you seem to think is somehow deviant and wrong. Extra mouths may cost more, but to some families they add so much more than the financial cost.

So, what now? No one should have children? One child per family with a forced abortion if they are pregnant a second time? Or maybe there should be a screening process and at about age 16, girls should be selectively sterilized so that they can't reproduce if they are not worthy?

Kids can be a joy, they can be a pain in the butt....they are part of life and it is not neat and tidy all the time, nor is it always predictable or rational.

[Hello_Kitty]

237. Yes, that's the point of them. Duh.

They were a little valentine Bill Clinton gave you middle class parents while he cut the poor off their benefits via "welfare reform".

[Bettie]

242. Believe it or not, people don't have kids because of a tax credit

People have many reasons or having children. A tax credit or lack of one doesn't even figure into the decision at all.

And cutting off people's benefits was a terrible thing, something that I didn't agree with at all...but it is not the fault of parents that welfare was cut under the guise of reform.

You seem to have a strong dislike of anyone who has made different choices than you.

If you don't want kids, then don't have them. Make your own reproductive choice.

I certainly don't think less of my friends who don't have kids than the friends who do. Everyone does the best they can in the circumstances they live in. I can no more know your life and your heart than you can know mine. I can't make your decisions for you and you can't make mine for me.

I think the OP was pointing out that the poor have as much right to reproductive choice as you or me or anyone else.

But back to my first point, when people decide to have a child, their first thought isn't "WOW! I can get a tax credit!"

[Hello_Kitty]

243. People don't install solar panels because of tax credits either.

But the tax credits are still considered an incentive to do it. Jesus Christ, do I really need to explain such basic economic facts to people?

[Bettie]

248. Having kids is a much bigger decision than solar panels

You install solar panels and that's it. And yes, tax credits are an incentive for a ONE TIME expense.

Having children is not the same, it is an emotional investment and a responsibility.

Wow, you really seem to have a strong dislike of families with kids. I'm sorry for whatever brought you to that.

[Hello_Kitty]

263. Wow, you really seem to have an expectation of deference.

Typical of most middle class parents. Congratulations, you followed the Approved Life Script^TM. Go get your cookie. :eyes:

[Shell Beau]

328. Well it is lovely to know what you think. Luckily Michael Douglas, et al

don't see it is a "breeding". And I am guessing his children are glad they are here. Or, shall I say, glad they were bred. And I didn't know you were friends with Michael Douglas. I can't believe he only had children to prove his virility. Imagine Catherine's surprise when she had the kids that she had no choice in the matter of breeding, and that Michael only bred with her for his virility. :eyes: Does that sound ridiculous? Yes, because it is.

Yeah, maybe if you are having a hard time making ends meet, you shouldn't go have a baby, but many times it doesn't work that way. But since you are the all knowing and after all, you know Michael Douglas.... Get over yourself. Please for everyone else's sake, get the fuck over yourself.

[Hekate]

56. The OP has no "illusions", romantic or otherwise. This is a rather mean-spirited response...

... from someone who has clearly never been there or done that.

The best way to alleviate poverty is to create JOBS with a living wage and a pension plan -- jobs that don't require a college degree. Like Union jobs -- before Reagan broke the backs of the unions.

Going hand in hand with that is the necessity of providing comprehensive health care for WOMEN. You want to reduce "excess" births? Donate faithfully to Planned Parenthood and fight to get the full range of health care for women into the health insurance reform bill.

Some people (perhaps yourself) have bought into the -- dare I say it -- illusion that they are autonomous creatures who have no need of the interdependency that comes with creating a family that includes children. One does not need to actually have children (many of my friends don't) to understand family love.

How sad is that, to not be able to understand.

Hekate

[PatSeg]

63. As a single mother,

I would also add that a society that is supportive of women struggling to raise their children under difficult conditions would make a big difference. Instead we tend to look down on such women, as if hardship was a conscious choice. When I raised my children, I gave them everything I could with the thought that they'd grow up to be well-balanced adults. It never occurred to me that I was creating family that would be there for me when I got older. I had no idea how great the rewards would be. I was doing what I had to do and did it with little help or support from the society I lived in.

Ironically the men I knew who were raising children on their own were put on a pedestal, while the women were looked down upon for the same struggle often with far less income.

[Hekate]

76. Yes on all counts. nt

[Scout]

93. i do not have to support the short-sighted, selfish choices of women who CHOOSE

to bring children into the world that they KNOW THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CARE FOR.

everyone may fall on bad times after they have had a family, you can't help that. but too many (young) women are knowingly having children in not just less then ideal, but really difficult circumstances. they do a disservice to themselves and their children.

and i'm just fucking sick of being expected to support the "reproductive choices" of all women regardless of their circumstances.

[hippywife]

272. So glad you won't have the opportunity to

weed out which are which. You are so fucking short-sighted it's scary. You sound just like the Reagan worshipers who see no need to involve themselves with the AIDS situation when it first came to light because it was a "gay" disease and who would bend so low as to help "them!" An illness in the community of man effects all in some way, big or small. Learn to walk in someone else's shoes once in awhile. You'd be amazed at what you might see.

Seems you have been on the wrong board for some time now. I, too, am glad you won't be reproducing.

[Scout]

306. another ridiculous post full of straw and bullshit n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

145. Sorry, but having children when you are in hardship IS a conscious choice.

Either we believe women are autonomous beings with agency or we don't.

It never occurred to me that I was creating family that would be there for me when I got older.

You should pass that memo along to the OP, who apparently thinks that children are retirement plans for their parents.

[winyanstaz]

174. That is simply not true.

I take it you have never been married to an abuser who raped you whenever he felt like it and denied you birth control pills at the same time. Some men do not believe in birth control and deny their wives access to it.
I take it you have never been raped by your daddy or a brother or a cousin or an uncle and left to bear his children.
I take it you think poor women that could not afford birth control are never raped.
I take you you are not one of the women that got pregnant while on the pill as it was in my case.
Or some of them who's IUDs were not in place properly or came out or who's IUDs were some of those that were moving around inside their bodies or who's contraceptive had a hole in it. (my second child was born because the pills simply did not work for me)
Some people have to chose between birth control pills and feeding the kids they already have. Just how are they to chose between birth control and milk for their baby they already have crying in hunger in their arms?
Some people cannot even afford the bus money to get to the free clinics...nor have any other way get to the clinics in the first place..or might not have the health to get to the help they need.
Not every poor community has free clinics...nor ways to get to other ones. You have obviously never lived in the back hill country.
Some women are brain washed by churches that they will burn in hell forever if they use birth control.
To lump all the cases together and declare it is a "conscious choice" is just not only heartless..but you are not stopping to think.

[Stargazer99]

196. Thank you! For enlightening the ignorant and callous

[NikolaC]

224. Thank You

[Hello_Kitty]

325. You're actually wrong on a few of those counts, but I'm not going to get into that.

I will say that I don't see anything wrong with presenting girls and women from impoverished and highly religious communities with the option of not having children at all. I used to volunteer teaching ESL to immigrants. My students and I got to know each other fairly well and I remember one young woman with 2 children, an undocumented immigrant who was struggling to support her family while living in constant terror of INS and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (this is Phoenix) being shocked when I told her I had no desire to have kids. Her exact words to me were, "I didn't know you could do that!" She grew up conditioned to believe that she was just supposed to have children. For all the pissing and moaning and handwringing of the OP and her supporters about how poor people are discouraged from having children, they're really not. The childfree-by-choice movement is pretty much the exclusive province of the middle and affluent classes. Who are you to deny the poor the choice NOT to have children? Basically, if poor people realized voluntarily childlessness was a legitimate choice, there's a good chance a lot of them would opt for it, at least at the same rate of their wealthier counterparts. Tell me again, why is that a bad thing?

[EndersDame]

207. Working Single Moms are my Heroes!

Seriously all working single moms have more superpowers than Wonder Woman!

[Hello_Kitty]

96. The OP was a long-winded fishing expedition for attention and recs. She got 'em.

Really, she might just as well have done an OP about how puppies are cute and rainbows are awesome.

Stop picking on poor people! Children are the future!

:eyes:

BTW:

Some people (perhaps yourself) have bought into the -- dare I say it -- illusion that they are autonomous creatures who have no need of the interdependency that comes with creating a family that includes children. One does not need to actually have children (many of my friends don't) to understand family love.

How sad is that, to not be able to understand.

Those are called "people who were unwanted or abused or neglected children themselves". The world is full of us, Hekate, and we know a thing or two about people who aren't cut out to be parents and the damage they inflict on innocent kids. Maybe instead of gasping and clutching your pearls and smelling salts and guilt-tripping me you might want to pay attention to what I and others like me are saying. Yours isn't the only valid experience in the world.

[varelse]

159. I feel that your accusation has the tone of a personal attack on the OP

[Bettie]

232. I was an unwanted/neglected child myself

My mother had me when she was 15 with her 21 year old boyfriend, my bio-father.

She was in no way equipped to be a mother and was scary and downright abusive to me and my two brothers (3 kids by 19).

When I was 3, my bio-father began sexually abusing me. This continued until I was 17 and left home for college.

This is the short version, obviously.

I now have a college eduction (received due to government assistance and lots of hard work including many really horrid jobs), close friends, the best of which is my beloved husband who is truly the most wonderful person I've ever known, and three little boys who are the joy of my life (and yes, sometimes, migraines on the hoof).

My mother is now medicated for her bi-polar disorder and I have rebuilt a relationship with her, because she's my mother. She's a pretty good grandma though.

I have zero contact with my bio-father, because I can't let him near my kids. My brother watches over him though and helps him when he needs it and ensures that he doesn't get to have contact with children.

In the end, each of us lives our own experience and deals with them in our own way. I'm sorry you didn't have a loving family. I'm sorry I didn't. I am lucky to have one now and I treasure every day that I have with them.

[JANdad]

107. Should they just;

"Hurry up and die, and decrease the surplus population" then?

[etherealtruth]

110. if some of the posters here are to be believed one must add:

... and "improve the gene pool."

[Hekate]

153. One would have to reach that conclusion, wouldn't one? nt

[JVS]

62. The idea of children as a resource makes no sense from the upper middle class perspective

Suppose a child is born to a doctor or a lawyer. The parent is likely to view it as their responsibility to provide the child with the education and upbringing that will prepare the child to pursue a career in a similar or better occupation. This means investing money in childcare, good orthodontics, primary education (either by living in an area with good schools, which can be expensive, or private schooling), and the ability to pay for the kid to attend a prestigious university, and possibly even helping to finance professional school afterwards. Not to mention all the toys and doodads that will give the child a pleasant childhood. Only after 30 or more years is this individual likely to be self sufficient, although it will likely become quite wealthy once it is independent. From this perspective it is reasonable to consider having children to be a great expense, especially if during the child's infancy one of the high-earning parents will sacrifice income and advancement opportunity for a few years in order to take care of the baby.

For the poor, such things are already unaffordable no matter how many or few children the family has. So not only is there not the list of expenses, but assuming that the children are to become workers at the age of 18 (although part time starts earlier) the contribution to family wealth comes sooner. And while it is not the case that people think of how their children will economically benefit them directly, there is an underlying assumption that in an extended family where everyone tries to pull their own weight, that the weaker links like the aged will be helped out.

[Hekate]

78. That is a very realistic point of view. nt

[EFerrari]

69. Not in this culture.

In a Latino culture, yes, they are. Here, not so much.

And only in this culture could children caring for their elderly parents be seen askance as some kind of unnatural harvesting.

I literally can't wrap my mind around it. lol

[varelse]

104. They cared for us when we were helpless

how could it be seen as unnatural for us to care for them when the tables are turned, as they inevitably are unless the parent dies young? I confess, I don't get it either.

[Duende azul]

139. Shorter Kitty: Children of the poor are unsustainable.

You're much into Malthusian crap aren't you?

Abolish the poor instead of abolishing poverty. Yeah.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

170. So generation after generation should suffer for utopian thinking?

That means real suffering for real people,

[dickthegrouch]

21. Read "The Dispossessed" By Ursula Le Guin

It has some rather forward thinking economic policy in it.
It shaped a lot of my thinking on possessions and community when I was a teenager.

[StarfarerBill]

27. Excellent suggestion, Dick. :)

Reading Le Guin's works generally have altered my perspectives for the better, hence my sig. :)

[dickthegrouch]

168. I like that quote

And I don't know that book. I'll have to get it. Thanks

[StarfarerBill]

220. Thanks to you, too. :)

"The Telling" is set in the Ekumen universe. You'll enjoy it, I think; it reflects Le Guin's philosophy very openly.

:)

[Toucano]

22. I can't believe I am about to write this

But it is an undeniable truth.

Children are hope for the future.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Why?

Considering that we've already created over 7 billion children, if we haven't figured out how to solve our problems as a species with the "resources" we have now it probably ain't gonna happen by creating billions more.

[Hekate]

57. Well, I do hope you are doing your part by vowing to never have any of your own....

:eyes:

Because it's been proven that one affluent American sucks up more of the world's resources than any dozen Indian villagers.

Hekate

[Pool Hall Ace]

91. I'm not Hello_Kitty, but

I hope that you are not assuming that people who don't have children are affluent.

I vowed not to have any children while I was still a child myself. Unfortunately, I shouldn't have gotten married, either. I have been displaced by my emotionally abusive husband, and I'm now on food stamps. I am working to get back on my feet and become independent again.

On the other hand, I don't go around deciding who should and who shouldn't have children.

[Hekate]

149. My only assumption is that affluent parents beget affluent kids, give them cars and electronic toys,

... and generally consume a lot more of the world's resources than poor people, especially those in villages with spotty electricity.

However, I long ago stopped trying to convince people that ZPG was their personal responsibility (it may be, but who's listening) and instead focused on the surrounding socioeconomic issues that make so many women have more children than they can readily support or want. Did you know that an illiterate Third World woman will bear about 8 children in her lifetime? But give her daughters an education to the 4th grade level and her daughters will have only 4 children. Pretty amazing.

After reading The Population Bomb and Garrett Hardin's writings I decided to have only 2 kids myself. But your family's size (or whether you even have one) is your business. I believe in education and free will in equal measure.

Hekate

[Hello_Kitty]

113. I don't want children and I'd suck as a mother.

Luckily, I came upon that awareness at an early age and didn't inflict myself on some innocent child.

And it's not like I expect praise for that or anything but I'm always puzzled as to why people like you think that provides an excellent opportunity to insult me. Newsflash: You and I are not alike. I have no interest in being a mother nor does my identity revolve around that role in any way. Maybe you're one of those women who thinks all women are born to be mothers and women who aren't mothers are "unnatural" or something. Which would be more a reflection on your mentality than on me.

Now cue the inevitable, and somewhat tautological, "OMG I'm soooooo glad I'm not like you! I'm a warm loving person, unlike you, which I have proven by having children!" response to this.

[Hekate]

151. Some of the warmest women I know are childless by choice. No, you and I are not alike. Goodbye_Kitty

You jump to conclusions about others quite readily, though.

Hekate

[Hello_Kitty]

156. I'm rubber, you're glue, hon.

Your commentary on this thread has been all about your ASSumptions about other people.

And I suspect that the childless people you like go out of their way to kiss your butt about what a saint you are because you are a mom.

[Le Taz Hot]

216. So, childless people are "affulent?"

What the hell memo did I miss?

LTH<---childless and poor as a church mouse.

[Lyric]

228. I'm pretty sure she was saying that Americans are affluent.

At least compared to Indian villagers.

[Hekate]

298. Please see my previous post #149 re affluent parents begetting affluent kids.

[StarfarerBill]

24. Thank you! +1

:)

[Odin2005]

30. +1. IMO that crap is thinly-veiled Eugenicist thinking.

"The poor are inherently inferior and letting them breed will destroy our society" is what it basically amounts to.

[anonymous171]

33. Or "if the poor breed too much they might start demanding more from the rich"

And we all know that is totally unacceptable.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. When has that ever happened?

Look to history. A large population of poor people is too busy desperately fighting over crumbs to put up much resistance. When there are fewer workers/soldiers/consumers is when the rich have to start treating us better.

[anonymous171]

38. Every single revolution ever.

Large disparities in wealth are magnified by large populations. A lot of disenfranchised and poor people = change.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. I'd prefer to go the less bloody and more effective route

Low supply of workers/soldiers/consumers = better wages and working conditions = healthy and educated middle class that keeps the rich in check.

[anonymous171]

42. What if the elite convince the middle class to identify with them instead of the workers?

As they did with Reaganomics and deregulation?

[Hello_Kitty]

44. That's a problem, true, but you don't solve it by adding to the population.

Which is essentially what we did in the U.S. by flooding our labor market with poor immigrants.

[mitchum]

41. +1

[Odin2005]

45. It's a common truism that baby booms result in social unrest a generation later.

[varelse]

127. No, that's when they begin to either import or build our replacements

at which point we become robot food http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1946878/yes_its_true_the_us_military_has_plans.html?cat=37

Good times :crazy:

[Posteritatis]

79. It's veiled at all? (nt)

[Odin2005]

87. I was being kind.

[mamaleah]

260. You got it, Odin.

They are no better than the conservative slobs who are also pro-eugenics for "certain" groups.

They are our betters and think we should listen to them. We chose not to.

[Odin2005]

317. Thank you!

I am very sensitive when it comes to the issue of society saying who and who cannot have kids. I am a high functioning autistic and there are plenty of people that think I should not have kids, especially if I end up marrying an autistic woman, because my kids would have a high chance of being on the spectrum themselves, as if that that were a bad thing.

[LWolf]

32. To be clear:

I see having children as the dark side of the reproductive choice coin. While I don't want to deny people the choice to have children, I would urge them to make that choice responsibly.

We already have a few more billion people than the planet needs.

That means that no one, no matter how affluent, should have more than 2 children. Total. Regardless of how many relationships they go through during their lives. That means that infertile couples should remain infertile and adopt until no more kids need adopting. That means that the whole concept of family should change, allowing larger family groupings; people don't have to reproduce to have a "nuclear" family.

That means that a poor person acknowledging your point: "...for the most part, poor people tend to STAY poor," would not want to bring more children into a life of poverty.

The real issues aren't whether or not poor people should have children; they are:

1. Fewer people should be having fewer kids.

2. There shouldn't BE any poor people. We should evolve into a society that does not allow poverty.

[Lyric]

43. I would like to see a society which does not allow poverty.

But it would need to be a global society, and if that were the case, then it also wouldn't allow significant wealth. This would be fine with me, but I suspect that the better-off set of DU'ers might raise an uproar about the idea of a world without rich people OR poor people.

[Odin2005]

46. +1,000,000,000,000

[Hello_Kitty]

48. I'm sorry, but we're not going to acheive that goal

By obligingly providing the rich with and endless supply of serfs and cannon fodder. Planned parenthood isn't just a slogan or something to give lip service to while pretending that all procreation choices are equal and ethically and economically neutral. It means acknowledging the harsh truth that a baby born to a family with 3 other children living in a car doesn't have a very good chance of emerging from poverty. It means acknowledging that we don't live in the socialist utopia where wealth has been distributed equitably but instead a grossly unfair and unjust shithole of an economic system where the majority of people born today will live nasty, brutish, and short lives and no amount of romanticizing their hardship or poverty will make it a better experience for them. It means respecting choice but realizing that there's big difference between a woman using contraception or getting an abortion and her carrying a pregnancy to term, which effects a good number of other people, not the least of whom is that child she brought into the world.

[Lyric]

51. I've been trying to figure out what your position is.

The premise of my OP was basically that poor people should not be forced to refrain from having children. I talked a lot about some of the reasons (not all, just some) why having children helps poor people survive, but when it comes right down to it, my point was that it's wrong to advocate forced birth control/sterilization/abortion for the poor.

Exactly WHICH of those ideas are you disagreeing with so vehemently? I have no problem with educating people so that they make intelligent, responsible family planning choices. I'm not saying that poor people need to have a dozen kids each in order to survive. I don't disagree with you that overpopulation in the world is a problem. I specifically stated that access to and availability of birth control and abortion services are important. My argument was directed at the people who think that the country would be better off if the middle-class voters imposed fertility regulations specifically on poor families--not people who think that we ALL should choose to have fewer children. That's a separate issue, and one that I completely agree with.

So what exactly is the conflict, then? Do you think that we should impose legal regulations on how many kids people can have? Should those regulations only be directed at low-income families, or at everyone equally? And do you really think that would make much of a difference, considering how many people are having huge families in nations where our laws don't reach? How would you solve the problem of churches (like the RCC) who convince people that birth control and abortion are sinful? Is there any practical hope whatsoEVER of actually convincing the entire world to (a) drop all religions that preach against BC/abortion, (b) to outlaw having more than 1-2 kids, and (c) to actually enforce said laws?

Honestly, if THAT is what you're arguing for, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to point your finger at ME and preach about "romantic illusions." Pot, meet kettle.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. It always comes down to the legal restrictions I supposedly want to impose on childbearing

A position I've never taken on this site. I'm not for having the law tell people whether, when, or how many children to have. I am for using social pressure, just as we do with numerous other things, to encourage responsible procreation. At the same time, I'm for removing all social and economic pressure on people, women especially, to have children. If it simply became okay to opt out of parenthood (and it is not in most places and in most socio-economic groups I don't care how much you insist you and your liberal friends don't give people a hard time for being childless by choice) the birthrate would drop like a stone.

Seriously, you and others immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to impose limits on children a la China when I'd be ecstatic if having only one kid or being childless became socially acceptable and possibly, gawd forbid, encouraged.

[Lyric]

67. I have no beef with "encouraging" family planning.

But encouragement doesn't always work. Ask the abstinence-only people about that one. We live in reality, not Happy Idealism Land. People make bad choices because they're human beings, and shit happens. We can "encourage" for all we're worth, but until we deal with the poverty that makes having children the easiest way to ensure survival, people aren't going to listen very hard. In the meantime, it seems prudent to make people aware of the underlying complexities of the problem so that we don't end up with some horrific reactionary backlash law that forbids people from having kids.

And what's with the accusation against me and my "liberal friends" (Wtf is that about??) about people who are childfree by choice? I have no problem with that; if you're doing well enough that you've saved for retirement and can take care of yourself with no help, well gravy for you. If you're NOT doing well enough and you still don't want kids, gravy for you. My only beef with *some* childfree by choice people (very few, I might add, as most are reasonable people) is with the scant handful who think that their choice should be imposed on other people. The vast majority of childfree folks are kind and decent people who are doing what's right for them, and I have no problem at all with that.

And if you have no desire to impose birth regulations on poor people, then I also have no problem with you. If you think I'm opposed to "encouraging" people to have fewer children, then you're misunderstanding me. I simply don't want to see the most vulnerable people in the country forced to suffer even MORE hardship because we neglect to solve POVERTY before we start removing poverty resources. And children ARE resources. They are loved, to be sure, but I grew up in a trailer park, and I don't know a single poor mother who isn't counting on her kids to help her out when she's old and no longer able to work. She sees them as individuals, and she sees them as a resource as well.

Since eliminating the burdens of poverty would enormously relieve the pressure that a lot of poor women feel to produce children, especially the burdens of elderly poverty, perhaps that should be the focus instead of arguing back and forth about things that we really don't fundamentally disagree on?

[LWolf]

77. You're right, of course.

I would like to see the world evolve in that direction, even just a little, during my lifetime, though.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. It's the same mindset that says that poor people shouldn't own DVD players

Never mind that a DVD player costs $30 these days. Never mind that it's cheaper to rent a DVD for $1 at a supermarket than to take a family out of a movie theater. Never mind that someone who works two jobs to survive at a minimum level may need to vege out in front of the TV and watch a comedy.

The real underlying message is "Poor people are poor because they're lazy and worthless. They don't DESERVE to have any satisfactions in life."

[PatSeg]

53. Yes

Poor people should look poor, act poor, and never experience any pleasure whatsoever. It is sad how quickly people criticize the poor and give the wealthy a pass. A rich man can throw his wife a million dollar party, but a poor man buys a $1 lottery ticket or a six-pack of beer and he's reviled. It comes from a society that measures a person's worth by dollars, as if money is all a person has to contribute.

[emmadoggy]

85. Ugh. Yes, I had to sit through a discussion

on THANKSGIVING DAY no less, with people who had just that attitude. It started innocently enough, when they asked about how my job was going (I work in a school). I was bemoaning a couple of difficult students that I work with, but then mentioned that I know these kids come from difficult circumstances at home. I mentioned that our school district has a somewhat high poverty rate (compared to the region overall) and mentioned a couple of specific instances that I was aware of. My uncle and a family friend both scoffed and started complaining that they didn't feel there were that many people who were poor. "I don't see a lot of poor people around. Everyone seems to have money for this and for that." They went on to bemoan how many organizations and charities were hitting them up for money and how ridiculous it was. My uncle even said, "If I'm giving money to all of them, how am I supposed to have enough for myself?!" Which was a ridiculous statement in so many ways. They said that all these organizations are claiming there is such an increase in need, but they scoffed at that too. My uncle said that maybe they need to "lower their standards" - meaning lower their eligibility criteria for who receives aid.

I certainly wasn't shocked by the conversation (my uncle is a Republican), but I was completely disgusted.

[PatSeg]

88. And on Thanksgiving of all days!

I had a long conversation with a republican on Thanksgiving as well. He was a nice enough guy, but he really couldn't SEE what was going on around him. I out found that California farmers never had problems with bugs until the damn liberals raised a stink about pesticides. Woman's Lib is to blame for depressed wages, because back in the fifties a family of four or five could live off of one income. Its been a long time since I've engaged in a debate with a right-winger and when I left I was truly THANKFUL I was a liberal.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. Child =/= DVD player.

But then, I'm sure you knew that.

[Orrex]

131. Sure. You can Mute a DVD player.

:evilgrin:

[JVS]

52. K&R There is cause and effect confusion on this dovetailing with the assumption that the poor...

are incapable of rational economic decision making.

It is not the having of many children that makes people poor, it is poverty that causes having many children to be a smart idea, as you outlined in your old age argument. This is a worldwide historical phenomenon. Only when the material conditions of a country have advanced, does the birthrate slow down.

[Hello_Kitty]

95. Reducing the available supply of labor is what improves conditions.

Whether that is done through lowered birthrates, reduced immigration, child labor laws, mandating shorter work weeks, or a combination of all those things. Having a glut of laborers for whatever reason drives down wages and working conditions, and increases the likelihood of wars over resources. The wealthy elite ALWAYS want a large supply of serfs and cannon fodder. It is ALWAYS in their best interest to have too many workers and not enough work to go around.

[anonymous171]

101. Then why are the elites so concerned with overpopulation? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

111. They're not. It's a bullshit meme being pushed by the anti-choicers.

Supposedly there was some conference where the free traders gave lip service to population, in the context of the environment. Big fucking whoop. Meanwhile, the most powerful and wealthy entities in the world are trying to thwart efforts to curb population growth, often under the guise of religion. You have countries like Japan and Italy wringing their hands over "declining birth rates" and offering incentives to have children. Ever hear of Baby Bonuses? Trust me, the LAST thing plutocrats want people to do is make fewer workers/soldiers/consumers. GMAFB.

[anonymous171]

112. A lot of that has to do with the need for more workers to sustain the older generations' pensions

More workers = More taxes for government programs.

[Hello_Kitty]

114. And every generation needing to be even larger to replace the one that preceeded it.

Considering we're at 7 billion humans now, just how long do you think an economic model predicated on endless population growth can be sustained? Maybe time to come up with a different model?

[Quantess]

297. Our corporate masters want us to keep on breeding.

Environmentalists are the ones who are concerned with overpopulation, and rightfully so.

Our puppet masters want ignorant, poorly educated masses who will believe whatever the media tells them, because they are easier to exploit.

[anonymous171]

302. Whatever helps you maintain your elitist worldview. nt

[Quantess]

304. What's that supposed to mean?

I'm an "elitist" now? Sounds like you are the one wagging your finger at the peons, atop your high horse.

[pitohui]

61. too long didn't read but i get it, you want the poor to be poor forever

it reminds me a bit of the people in deaf communities who want to be sure that they are having deaf children (a trend i would hope that most people will agree should not be encouraged)

you should not be having children to keep them in poverty so that they can be your slave in your old age

i have a genetic condition, i did not say to myself, by gum, let me make some babies and pass it on so i won't be the only freak in this world

no, i would rather be the only freak in this world than to pass down the suffering through the generations, forever

i have been poor, i have been w.out health care, i have been homeless and it's time to stop it

all your fancy words are just a fancy way of saying, you don't want to see an end to poverty, you don't want your suffering to be forgotten and the best way to be sure it isn't forgotten is to be sure you have children and then grand-children to suffer too

me, i want my suffering to disappear from the earth

me, my dream is for the future to be BETTER and for other people to have BETTER lives

let poverty be a forgotten nightmare, if not for me, if not for you -- it's too late for us -- but for some future generation almost within reach

[Lyric]

70. Wow.

Yeah. Um. Sure. That's TOTALLY what I want. I'm an evil cartoon villain, and I secretly want my friends and family to suffer forever! I want to perpetuate horrific misery on the people I love the most because I'm eeeeeevil! Dammit pitohui, you found me out. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their pesky dog.



:eyes:

[Jamastiene]

74. You are right....

about one thing: You definitely should not reproduce.

There are enough sour pusses who advocate eugenics and have no clue what poor people go through as it is. The last thing we need is another generation with a mentality as grumpy, classist and short sighted as your mentality is.

You really hate poor people, don't you? Remind me never to cross paths with you.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. Hammer. Nail. Head.

The OP is a load of self-serving crap. It does prove that poor people can be just as arrogant and narcissistic as the wealthy. Moreover, if a self-identified rich person wrote that exact same piece - opining of the need for poor people to rely on their children as sources of income and old-age care - I seriously doubt it would have 50+ recs. Unbelievable.

[KamaAina]

250. Some Deaf parents want Deaf kids because Deafness is a culture

with its own languages, such as American Sign, and a rich history dating back to the mid-19h century.

Deaf people, and people with other disabilities, only "suffer" because society refuses to accommodate them.

edit: languages; New Zealand recognizes its sign language as official!

[SuffertheMasses]

65. cannon fodder

Well said, especially in times like these where the military is the only entity doing any hiring. How are these "taxpayers" supposed to provide for the older generation when most of the jobs that used to support a middle class are now being done by people in other countries. Hell, even our medical diagnostics are being outsourced http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621014/. That particular story relates the need to "the lack of radiologists in America", but if it is cheaper don't expect it to go away if suddenly poor people decide they are going to be radiologists.

The average poor American with no role models, little or no education (high school diplomas are worthless, many graduates can't even spell or do basic math), no experience, and no chance to develop their skills is being set up for failure. They are NOT going to be contributing to a tax base, and inevitably are more likely to be in need of support FROM the tax base. Until we get some decent (equal) education and people who are willing to share their wealth (by hiring/paying) with their fellow Americans, the poor will keep getting poorer and the middle class idea of "retirement" will become another hopeless dream.

[PatSeg]

68. Welcome to DU

[PatSeg]

73. Maybe you should have read the entire OP

I didn't have children to be there for me in my old age. Having family later in life was an unintended, unanticipated reward for years of struggle and hardship. It never dawned on me that some day I might need them. My primary focus was always on their needs.

Society tends to look down on the poor as if it was a genetic disorder and as such, poor people aren't entitled to familial love because they may breed more of the same. Children of caring "poor" parents often grow up to be successful adults. As a parent, that makes all those years worthwhile. I never expected anything else in return.

[varelse]

106. Society tends to look down on the poor as if it was a genetic disorder

Yes, or some kind of crime or personal moral failing. So few are willing to really examine the source, the wellspring of poverty which is, frankly, greed. One percent of the human population is so wealthy the literally have the power of life or death over millions of people, and somehow this is never connected back to the poverty in which most of the 6+ billion people who work most of their lives just to scratch out a bare-bones survival income.

[Hekate]

75. Lyric, thank you for the well thought and articulate OP. Your observations are spot on...

Some of the replies baffle me. Ideological rigidity and talk of what people "should" be doing won't get us very far. You have laid out the situation very well, and imo without "rambling" a bit.

But the snark about the intelligence of your thought processes is just weird. My late dad was a blue collar skilled union worker for Lockheed Aircraft who never got very far in college (whether because no one in his family had ever been to college or because of the ADD that runs in the family or because of having a growing family of his own, no matter). The point is he was an insatiable reader with an IQ off the charts, and damned good at a complex line of work that required both his hands and his brain. I don't think a lot of people whose only point of reference is white collar work understand that at all.

A Bachelor's or Master's college degree, while nice for a lot of people, is not the be-all and end-all of education and work, and the more blue collar jobs we have exported in order for corporate monstrosities to pay lower wages and maximize their profits, the more poor people we have created. When corporations started exporting white collar jobs for lower wages, then that class of people finally started to notice, but by then it was too late. The union movement, which was never part of the white collar mentality, is pretty well broken in this country, and the unions were what forced big businesses to pay living wages, fund pensions, and provide benefits: there was a trickle-up effect, the best kind. No more.

Below the economic and social level of the Bushes, we are all interdependent. That means 98% of the country, whether they realize it or not.

Thanks for laying it out so beautifully from an important perspective.

Hekate

[PatSeg]

83. I've known so many white collar types

who learned the lessons of compassion and empathy the hard way and some still didn't get it, because they were somehow "different". After twenty or thirty years of relative comfort and security, they lose their jobs and find they are no longer employable. They often don't have the survival skills that those who are less fortunate possess.

I learned long ago not to judge others - "There but for fortune...." plays in my head. I found that some of the kindest, most generous people came from backgrounds that my parents would have look down upon. People who have little to give, often give generously without thought of repayment. They know full well the importance of friendship and family, as they could not survive without it.

Too many judge others by appearance, education, and economic status. When they find they need compassion and kindness, they find their account is overdrawn. Anything you did not freely give is sure to elude you when you need it the most.

[AngryAmish]

82. if the poor stop having children, who will be my organ banks?

[PatSeg]

178. We'll just outsource it

like everything else! Couldn't let such a witty comment go unacknowledged.

[varelse]

84. K&R

I'd like to add two other points:

1)Where the working class (aka poor) population begins to age and/or drop off due to (even voluntary) lowering of the birth rate, a vacuum is created in the work force that is filled by immigration - this is happening in Europe now - or by outsourcing (as is happening in the US now). If by some miracle, the drop in birth rate among us poor folks were to be universal and synchronized worldwide, we would see an upsurge in investment in technologies aimed at permanently replacing the working class (ie robotics and other automation). Any middle class person who thinks that would be good either for them or for the planet is going to be sadly disillusioned if they live to see it come to pass.

2)Not everyone who is currently unable to fully support their children was in that financial condition when they *had* the children - marriages fail, businesses fail, and sometimes, people get very, very sick. Poverty is an economic status, not a congenital condition. Nearly anyone can become poor - although so often those currently living in comfort and "within their means" find this fact easy to forget or dismiss.

[PatSeg]

86. Good points

I could "afford" to have children when my first was born. I was not poor and could never have foreseen future events in my life that would cause me economic hardship. How many newly married couples say they shouldn't have children because their marriage might fail or one spouse might become chronically ill, or long-term unemployment might occur.

[Midlodemocrat]

90. Awesome. As always.

:loveya:

[JackDragna]

97. I expected an article on poverty and families

..and ended up reading one of the best pieces I've seen on here about what I consider to be the #1 problem in America: economic inequality and endemic social injustice. Well done.

[inna]

99. kr

what a classist, immoral (relatively speaking, in comparison to other industrialized countries) society we are.

:(

[dixiegrrrrl]

105. Lyric, this is one of the best written posts I have seen on DU

and I appreciate the (mostly) thoughtful responses to it.

Thank you.

[alp227]

116. Nanny statism=the easy way out. Reality=

requires thought. Thank you so much for this insight!

[Hello_Kitty]

119. The more I read this OP the more obvious what a strawman it is.

You have to understand that whatever you inflict upon the poor has a direct effect on YOU as well, and that effect is not always what you thought it would be. A change as enormous and vital as the reproduction of an entire class of people is going to cause tidal waves of change in the middle class too, and if those changes are negative rather than positive, it would take generations--literally--to fix the situation and make it right. Generations of people suffering enormously because some of us fell prey to judgemental, short-sighted thinking and "simple" black-and-white answers that turned out to cause more problems than they solved.

Who's trying to "inflict" something and what exactly is it they are trying to inflict that differs in any significant way from what's been done up to now? Hmmm...seems to me that we've seen "enormous and vital" change on the reproduction of poor people (and every other class) in the form of the availability of contraception and safe, legal abortion (availability of which has diminished somewhat for poor women due to the machinations of anti-choicers). I have to wonder if DU had been around during the Griswold and Roe era if your posts would be handwringing about how contraception and legal abortion would erode the social fabric of poor families. I mean, honestly, who is proposing anything besides the standard family planning line of "every child wanted, loved, and well-cared for"? Are you opposed to that?

[underpants]

120. The poor and the powerless are not the ones organized to screw me over.

[Hello_Kitty]

122. Was there a sale on straw at the Pier One today?

This thread is so full of it that it should be declared a fire hazard. Who, pray tell, has suggested that the poor are organizing to screw you over?

[underpants]

123. Have you watched TV or read a newspaper in the last 30 years?

other than that.......

[Hello_Kitty]

125. It's not happening here.

Not even from meanie-butt wet blankets like me who aren't in awe of the OP's supposed eloquence.

[Lyric]

134. Your repeated abuse of me in this thread is wearying.

You have still never explained exactly what your vehement opposition to me is, but it's getting progressively more and more personal, and this particular post is especially vile as it serves NO purpose beyond degrading and demeaning me as a person, as did your agreement with a poster upthread who suggested that my true goal is to force my own friends and family into suffering and slavery. I neither know nor care what your problem with me is, but you are cordially invited to cease the personal attacks. You can disagree without embarrassing yourself with this increasingly disturbing behavior. *I* have seen the last of you, I assure you.

[Hello_Kitty]

137. If you're going to put an opinion out on a discussion board, expect it to be criticized.

Otherwise, don't

[PatSeg]

146. I've read your posts here

and you've made some interesting points. I can understand your point of view, but being my experience is different than yours, I can relate to what Lyric is saying in a way that perhaps you cannot. Evidently the subject has pushed some button in you, because I read more than "criticism" in your words. For some reason it has put you on the defensive and you are expressing borderline meanness and anger. No one is attacking you or your choices. Rather I commend those choices, but I respect Lyric's choices as well.

[Hello_Kitty]

154. Perhaps you should try to understand where I'm coming from a little better.

I'm an unwanted, abused, and neglected child who grew up poor (though not in poverty). My anger stems from easy breezy justifications from so-called progressives for unchecked and ill-considered procreation, no matter what the effect on the actual CHILD. The OP thinks of children as "resources" who exist to fulfill some need of their parents, regardless of their probable ability to do so.

[Hekate]

163. I'm genuinely sorry for your troubles,but YOU need to understand that MOST families are not like...

... your abusive and unloving family of origin.

NOT EVERYONE SHOULD BE A PARENT is a true statement. But it is also true that MOST PEOPLE WANT CHILDREN FOR A WHOLE HOST OF REASONS AND THEY LOVE THEM WHEN THEY ARRIVE. One does not cancel the other out. We reproduce. That's how the species survives.

MOST of us have enough of a loving model as children to behave lovingly to our own children. We had "good-enough" parents and we become good-enough parents ourselves. Societal expectations for women have changed, and a good thing it is, but MOST of us are hard-wired to want to have at least one baby, and sooner or later it catches up with us.

Of course your brain can cancel out any and all of your normal instincts -- you can choose to be celibate, too; after all sex is not integral to your personal survival any more than having a baby is. You can choose to live alone in a hut and not have anything to do with other people. It's a choice, right? But most of us are hard-wired to be social and interconnected.

Strangely enough, despite wars and plagues and economic downturns and poverty and famines -- somehow the human race just keeps on going.

But you are not listening to anyone but your own inner demons, and you are literally on the attack tonight. Lyric is not harming you by her fine article, but she has inadvertently pressed a major hot-button of yours and you are trying to tear her to bits. This is not a normal critique you are engaging in. :wtf:

Hekate

[Hello_Kitty]

172. I think you are using the fact that I volunteered some information about myself

To do a $2 psychoanalysis on me. That's fine. It's the kind of privilege that someone who has followed the Life Script^TM has available to them. Just please don't pretend that your mainstream life choices are criticized anywhere but on progressive message boards, occasionally. And please don't pretend that the OP has a legitimate basis to claim that anyone is seriously trying to stop poor people from procreating. Because the plutocrats who want an abundant and endless supply of serfs and cannon fodder sure as shit are not.

[PatSeg]

175. I know you don't realize it,

but I do know where you are coming from. I know unwanted, neglected, and abused emotionally, if not physically. We all take our experiences and use them in different ways. I totally respect your decision not to have children. I have had friends who would have been better off if they'd had the courage to make a similar decision, but I'm of a generation where few could or would make that choice.

With our own personal experiences, we tend to read into the OP that which touches us the most profoundly and you focused on something that may have related to your own life, as did I. I saw the part about children eventually caring for their parents more as sociological comment about families in general. Of course, this is not true in every case and there are children who leave home and never look back either because of a loveless childhood or a self-centered disposition.

I learned a lot from my parents. I learned how not to parent, but I chose to have children and be the best mother I could be. You chose not to be a parent, which is a valid and acceptable choice. I respect your choice sincerely. I expect people to respect my choice to raise my children through many hardships, because it reflects who I am and what I believe.

Very few parents raise children with the thought that it will pay off later on in life. Sometimes it is just a one-day-at-a-time mentality and in the process, whether conscious or not, parents are creating a sense of family and as one reaches the end of his/her life, he/she realizes that tends to trump everything else. I have been very fortunate, but it was luck that I created by the choices I made. I could have compromised for more comfort and less pain, but I don't think I would be experiencing what I am today. The children who drove me nuts and pushed every button, are the finest people I know and I was a part of that. In another life I may choose to touch many people through art or science, but in this life I chose to touch two who have touched many and that is enough.

Peace to you on the path you've chosen.

[druidity33]

233. "borderline meanness" ?

I'd say outright hostility...

:shrug:

[PatSeg]

244. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt

Thought if we could clear some of the surface emotions, maybe we could reach some understanding in spite of opposing views. Clearly I was wrong.

[Hello_Kitty]

252. The opinions expressed in the OP deserve hostility

I'm sorry that many people here are so blinkered by her emotional hogwash that they can't see that what she believes is pretty fucking appalling. She's saying that poor children are retirement plans for their parents.

I'm not surprised, however, by the way my sharing of my personal experience as an abused child of people who had no business being parents is being used to discredit my statements and mock me. The experiences of people who grew up in happy loving families who are now happy mommies and daddies, OTOH, are instantly credible and validate anything they say on the subject. But that's always the way it goes. The dominant group gets to decide what experiences are objective truth and what are subjective and can be discounted.

[druidity33]

282. you see phantoms

and conjure injustice. The OP said no such thing. Your personal experience and current stance in this thread can only lead me to believe you would rather never have been born. Which is a sad place to be. Perhaps if you hadn't started these screeds on this thread with such vitriol, people would been more inclined to listen to your POV. Several posters have made every effort to understand and lend support to your position and you've been nasty to them too. Good luck HK... i hope you can find common ground with the rest of us on some other issue.

:(

[Hello_Kitty]

284. LOL!

I see phantoms? Really? The OP is based on largely non-existent people on DU who are proponents of eugenics and sterilizing the poor. It's a massive bullshit strawman and I'm astonished at the number of people who are falling for it.

[PatSeg]

291. You are seeing what you want to see

Some people here grew up with abuse and/or poverty, and they made different choices. Those choices were right for them, just as your choices are right for you. I don't think anyone is discrediting your statements or mocking you. They are responding to your reactions to those who disagree with your opinion, which comes across as intolerant. I wouldn't make assumptions about people you encounter on a message board. Everyone has their own story and they've used their experiences in different ways.

[shellgame26]

214. looks like you really hit a nerve there lyric

I don't know what her problem is exactly...but WOW! Vicious!

[truedelphi]

129. Hey I have noticed that myself.

These days I am quite careful to see that the locks on my car doors are engaged when driving through a Gated Community. Never know when one of those folks will run out and try and get my last dime!

And I also no longer enter banks. Another place where my pockets were cleaned out.

I also ignore all the "Free promotions' and "this is one credit card that is pre-approved" invitations these white folks keep sending me.

[underpants]

144. Good advices

I tend to avoid white people too

[wicked stepsister]

126. k&r

Well said - I doubt many of us could add anything to that.

[bhikkhu]

130. Overpopulation creates poverty, not the other way around.

On a finite planet with finite resources, where resources can be equated with wealth, there is a point where poverty is a physical guarantee for the majority. It has nothing to do with what anyone thinks about anyone else, or what anybody wishes for others. I suppose I'm pretty poor myself (by US standards), and was raised in poverty, but seeing that the planet has a big and worsening problem with overpopulation is more of a mathematical reality than a judgment for or against any social class. There's only one boat, and we're all in it.

[varelse]

171. Inequality creates poverty

and as for the condition of the planet - well - guess which nations use the most resources and generate the most pollution and degradation of the environment? Hint: they aren't in the "third world".

Birth rates drop as living conditions, education, status, and opportunities for women rise. That is why birth rates in Europe have dropped below the "replacement rate". It is actually poverty that is driving overpopulation up, not the reverse.

[bhikkhu]

204. As far as population goes, there's no "us vs. them"

There's only one planet.

If you actually look at effect of affluence and education on birth rates, its a matter of tenths of a percent. It really solves nothing. The pattern of consumption which is sometimes called "wealth" and which is sometimes supposed to solve the population problem is completely unsustainable in any case, and certainly not where to look for a solution.

[varelse]

264. The pattern of consumption is not being spread by the poor (nt)

[bhikkhu]

279. Which makes poverty a goal and a skill rather than a burden

those who can't choose it or enjoy it you are at a profound disadvantage, given what our future is likely to be.

Of course, the above statement has little to do with population or overpopulation or how many babies anyone should have. We are still all in the same boat at the moment, rich or poor.

[varelse]

286. Are we?

http://www.unhcr.org/4a2fd52412d.html

[bhikkhu]

290. Your link is to war refugees

Tragic, and unfortunately too common, but a whole different subject.

[Liberation Angel]

246. Corporate and Totalitarian fascism create poverty

and they create overpopulation by denying education and resources for family planning.

On top of that they have exploited the sh*t out of global resources so that the few get most and the rest struggle or starve.

The population is not the problem as much as the management/exploitation of the global resources

The planet could support many more people, but as long as the resources are monopolized and managed solely for greed, poverty will continue.

[bhikkhu]

292. At one time you were right, but not now

The carrying capacity of the planet is less than our population, even with much of the population below the poverty level.

Even if enough farmland were available, there is not enough water to irrigate it, much less provide adequate fresh water to the 2 billion + who lack it. We are pumping aquifers at an unsustainable rate, major rivers go dry before they reach the sea, 25% of agriculture suffers from lack of sufficient water already, and so on.

There is not enough oil in the ground to continue to fuel our current level of consumption for long. This affects agriculture greatly, which relies upon petroleum products for fertilizer as the key ingredient of the "green revolution". Oil fuels the global economy, and its not going in a direction which will ever bring "development" to the "developing" world. The good intentions of the past (whether they were real intentions or not) are currently trumped by geological realities.

Blaming overpopulation on the denial of resources and education to the poor is a bogus argument in the face of climate change and peak oil, and avoids the real issues.

[Liberation Angel]

299. I strongly disagree, however, your key phrase is "current level of consumption"= resource management

I disagree with your fundamental assumptions here:

There is sufficient farmland provided that it is managed properly and intelligently. We burn or bury our waste instead of composting and recycling and we do not utilize safe farming techniques. Petroleum products are not essential for most farming and can and will be phased out or greatly reduced. There is nothing "green revolution" about petroleum based fertilizer.

With respect to water there is plenty of water but it is, again, not managed for the interests of humanity. Desalinization would provide all the water we need if we focused on that. But keeping the water we have clean is key: right now we have polluted so much of it that there is not enough for everyone available now unless we develop and utilize the resourcs we have more intelligently (again it is not too many people but corrupt resource management).

Renewables will begin to be the primary source of energy and we can be petroleum, coal and nuclear free within 50 years if we strive towards that and that can be on a global scale including developing countries. SEE, the old ways of doing business and exploiting resources are what is killing us.

Your point that we cannot sustain our current level of consumption is EXACTLY my point. But it is the LEVEL OF CONSUMPTION which fuels the power of the global corporate elites. Sure each one of us bears some responsibility for what we consume and how much carbon we put into the air or toxins in the ground --- BUT that is because the systems which are in place put there by the global corporate beast is what we are stuck with. I can't get mass transit where I live so I either pedal my bike or drive. But I would gladly utilize better methods if they were available.

The issue of over-density of populations is what is really at work here. We are pushed and shoved by circumstances to live in communities and cities and ghettoes in ways which enrich the richest people on the planet and destroy everything and everyone else. Many of us can be somewhat comfortable with our SUVs and DVD's and MTV (now with our laptops and wifi and cellphones and ipods) and our McDonalds and Burger King and KFC or Starbucks) but we have little clue how it affects the rest of the world. American and western style consumerism and media manipulation and propaganda is what is at the heart of the unavailability of adequate resources to feed and house and educate and heal the rest of the planet.

Don't say it isn't OUR fault and isn't the fault of the corporate fascist elites who run pretty much the whole show making us just comfortable or insecure enough that we do not revolt for fear of losing what little we have or losing it all (although many of us are).


To say that this is not the case, that it is a bogus argument, denies reality. And when i talk about education i primarily mean information and family planning so that people do not have more children than they WANT to have and have real options to impoverishment.

Climate change and the problem of peak oil are, as i underscore here, resource management issues which can be dealt with WITHOUT blaming the victims and making them suffer more.

[bhikkhu]

307. The key to the "green revolution" is synthetic fertilizer

which is a petroleum product. I recall back when the world was at a malthusian-looking crisis point, the green revolution was a very successful program instituted world-wide which basically doubled crop production. Its second element (after petroleum) was efficient irrigation, and its third new high-yield crops. The current problems are a basic lack of fresh water, and a decreasing supply and increasing cost of petroleum. Desalinating water on any useful scale is energy intensive, and there are no composting/recycling solutions available on a scale to replace petroleum based fertilizers. Throw in climate change, and we have what we have - a very seriously stressed world-wide agricultural system. Reserves are dropping, costs are increasing, and production is flat to declining.

It makes no difference who is to blame - you can't be expected to plan for what you don't know about. I was raised with the same expectations as everyone else here: human progress is linear, the future will be better than the past, every year should be better than the last, our standard of living is improving, the developing world is coming up right behind us, and so forth.

You'll notice I make my whole argument above without reference to either poverty or population. Neither are problems that can be solved in given our current circumstances, and neither looking for who to blame or waiting for someone to fix things is likely to result in anything. Local solutions (such as you suggest) and initiatives rebuilding community may be the best thing that we can do, and are one good aspect of the OP.

[anonymous171]

269. With our current capitalist system, yes. Which is why the elites are so frightened of it

[Igel]

132. You're posing a false dilemma.

Lots of them, in fact.

Note that there's a difference between having kids at far above replacement rate and having no kids.

There's a difference between poor and in poverty.

There's a difference between the outcome in kids from 2-parent and single-parent households. Step parents aren't as good, by and large, and other relatives are even less good. Statistically speaking.

There's a difference between families that endeavor to have kids thinking they can readily provide for their needs and families that endeavor to have kids knowing that the only way they can provide for their needs is through subsidies.

There's a difference between providing workers to an economy that needs them and providing workers to an economy which, even in good times, very seldom has under a 9% unemployment rate for high school dropouts and high school grads with no additional training. This pushes the poverty level higher and depresses wages. And, not coincidentally, depresses upward mobility while ensuring that educated immigrants can do very well.

There are many, many other differences salved over. Almost all of them are really, really obvious.

For example, a lot of people use these distinctions when saying which categories, in their opinion, probably have too many kids. They use them in various ways. Some fit the group you've utterly trounced. Most don't. Yet people act as though you've trounced them, too.

I'll even put myself in a group that you'll dislike even more: A large part of the reduction in upward mobility is cultural. Ponder that one for a while. And keep in mind that the nearly-all-white community I grew up in was just as culturally biased against college as the majority-minority community I live in now. Upward mobility for my parents' neighbors was a C-average in high school followed by a union job. As in many cases, a cultural trait that had worked for their parents and grand-parents failed their kids, and failed them both miserably and predictably. The same is true for where I live now.

[Lyric]

135. Note that I made a distinction (several times)

in this thread in which I explained that I am talking specifically about people who claim that poor people are "stupid" and shouldn't be permitted to "breed." I am NOT talking about people who want to see ALL of us make good family planning choices. I am not talking about the people who simply wish to see less births overall. I am talking about people who espouse a philosophy of socioeconomic eugenics--of limiting reproductive options for people based on their wealth. If you disagree with that, I would dearly love to hear your reasons why.

[varelse]

180. Some of the posts you refer to have since been deleted

I saw them too - but perhaps some of the respondents here did not? :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

136. Great points all around but especially this one:

There's a difference between families that endeavor to have kids thinking they can readily provide for their needs and families that endeavor to have kids knowing that the only way they can provide for their needs is through subsidies.

Upthread, the OP uses the example of a woman in a trailer park expecting her children to be in a position to support her someday. I'm like, WTF? That woman can not only not support her kids without subsidies but it's an absurd proposition for her to assume that those children, whether they work or not, will not be having to rely on some kind of government aid throughout most of their own lives. That is not a comment on whether or not they deserve those benefits, IMO they do (despite what anyone may assume about my opinion on that subject), but it's simply an observation on the utility of children as a retirement plan for people in poverty.

IOW, if you're a person in poverty in the U.S., having children is NOT, statistically speaking, an assurance that you will be cared for in your old age. Most people do not live on farms here and even the "hard working" immigrants liberals so love to trot out as exemplars of the nobility of poverty are not really going to be able to provide in-home care for their elders who have failed kidneys or require 24 hour skilled nursing care. At least not without massive government subsidies.

[druidity33]

238. wtf are you trying to say

about trailer parks? There is nothing wrong with living in a trailer. Affordable housing is one of the biggest problems for poor people. It's a chance to have your own space. I've been in some lovely trailer parks where the sense of community was palpable. Sharing common gardens, eating meals together, forming babysitting collectives, skill sharing, having collective yard/craft sales, to name but a few activities.

Do you do these things in your community?

Why do you suppose that you assume "That woman can not only not support her kids without subsidies but it's an absurd proposition for her to assume that those children, whether they work or not, will not be having to rely on some kind of government aid throughout most of their own lives."?

Being poor does not mean you cannot be a productive member of your community/society. Poor people will have children. It's not for you to say that's wrong. Regardless of the reason they have their children. Period. I really don't understand your beef with Lyrics' OP. After all, if your parents thought as you do, you might never have been born.

:shrug:





btw, here are some "poor people"... 2 of whom live in a trailer and 2 in a cabin...

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

276. Where are you getting an insult toward people in trailer parks from what I wrote?

I made a reference to something the OP said in a comment about people she knows who live in trailer parks.

This thread has literally been the most surreal experience I've ever had on DU. People are seeing things that just aren't there. It must be because the subject is children.

[druidity33]

280. Um, from where i quoted you?

You made a reference to the OPs story about a poor woman in a trailer park and said, i quote again:


"That woman can not only not support her kids without subsidies but it's an absurd proposition for her to assume that those children, whether they work or not, will not be having to rely on some kind of government aid throughout most of their own lives."



Why do you assume "that woman" can't support her kids? Why do you assume those kids will need government aid? Are you opposed to government aid for poor people? Or only when they choose to have children?

you sound positively full of negativity.

[Hello_Kitty]

283. I assume it from what Lyric said about her.

Pay attention: Lyric was the one who brought up a poor woman living in a trailer park, not me. For fucks sake, I live in Arizona where we have an abundance of trailer parks and many of them are retirement communities full of well-off people in really nice mobile homes.

You are positively straining to find things to be outraged about at this point.

[flvegan]

133. I don't think anyone should tell anyone else they shouldn't have children.

Regardless of income/wealth. I admit that I don't "like" seeing folks with 7 kids that all seem to be under 10 or something like that, simply for the overpopulation problems we face. But, it's none of my damn business. I know plenty of folks that would be described as poor that have children, and I don't see a problem with that. I don't think one should have to wait for prosperity to have children. Besides, consider if you will people that went on to absolute greatness that grew up in poverty. Maybe they shouldn't have been born, eh?

I didn't think anyone would say so.

[PatSeg]

138. I've known people who shouldn't be parents,

but it wasn't for economic reasons. Some people just aren't cut out to raise children and fortunately some of them realized that and make a conscious choice to be childless. There are others, however, who had children because of societal pressure or to hold on to a spouse. Unwanted children are truly impoverished regardless of economic conditions. We've finally reached a point where many women choose not to have children and it is considered by many to be acceptable. In that regard we've come a long way. It wasn't that long ago that a childless woman was to be pitied.

Yeah, 7 kids or more is a bit unsettling, but like you said, it's none my damn business as long as the children aren't abused.

I agree, many extraordinary people came from poverty and it would have been a great loss had they not been born because their parents were not prosperous.

[flvegan]

141. Agreed, I know plenty of them as well.

Some people, I do think, just aren't cut out to be parents (for whatever reason) and it has nothing to do with their income.

[PatSeg]

147. My children told me

that when they were young, they didn't know we were poor. As far as they knew, they had everything they needed. They grew up to be remarkable people.

[shellgame26]

215. +1

:thumbsup:

[Duende azul]

140. K'nR. Awesome post!

[femrap]

155. Just because one has children....

that doesn't mean they will care for you when you are old. Plus, we don't need more people in a world with decreasing resources.

I don't understand the OP's point.


We are no longer an agrarian society needing kids to work the land.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

158. I can't think of anything more cruel than condemning a child to poverty

While society has much to answer for you know the world in which you exist and bringing a child into a guaranteed life of poverty is not only irresponsible it is cruelty.

[varelse]

162. There are very few who can bring a child into this world and guarantee against poverty

That guarantee is becoming more elusive over time, not less. The progressive solutions to this problem range from unionization of the work force to subsidized contraception. The reactionary response is to blame one half of the reproductive pair (the one giving birth) for producing another mouth for you, the responsible taxpayer, to feed and educate.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

164. This is true, but few capable of reproduction are oblivious of their surroundings

This a rather horrible society we have created and everyone knows the odds and a dozen condoms are $2.99 at Wal-Mart.

[varelse]

166. Subsidizing contraception for women would be far more effective

than suggesting that they encourage their partners to use condoms. Instead, public policy in this regard ranges from indifferent to hostile - in some locales, birth control is seen as "elective" and therefore the sole burden of the woman. In others, it is seen as anti-life and is thought to promote or cause abortions.

We can make this society better, together, but I will continue to reiterate that we cannot do so by condemning our poor for being human, and for aspiring to what all humans are born instinctively driven to build and to be part of: a family.

Poverty is a global disease of humanity, not a symptom of the personal failings of the poor and powerless. The cause is overwhelming greed and ignorance.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

173. They shouldn't suggest anything, "put it on, or put it away"

People are instinctively driven to do a lot of things, but most of us have mastered not shitting on the sidewalk.

[varelse]

181. I would not put having children in the same category as endangering public health

Contraception, however, should be subsidized so that the woman has control of her fertility. This is far more effective than expecting the male partner to comply. Also - condoms aren't the most reliable form of contraception even when used properly. Sometimes they break...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

184. I have never in more than twenty years of sex broken a condom

If her partner won't comply, tell him to go fuck himself. I have never been with a woman who didn't clearly express her expectations where that was concerned.

[varelse]

185. Your experience isn't the only one which must be considered in forming public policy

Unfortunately, it actually isn't uncommon for birth control methods to fail - or for a man to refuse to comply or even to force unprotected sex on his partner :(

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

187. and that is called rape,

your pulling out abstinence talking points here, if a woman will not force her partners to wear a condom she shoulders a great deal of responsibility for any undesired outcomes.

[PatSeg]

193. Actually it is the woman who ends up

with the burden of pregnancy and child-raising regardless of whether the birth control worked or the man was compliant with the woman's wishes. Being a man, you assume you know what women go through. You are viewing this discussion through a very limited perspective. Not all men are like you. Not all birth control works.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

195. and if he is non-complaint, zip him up and kick him out

And the birth rates of many countries shows that contraception works just great, since I don't think the populations of Taiwan and Italy are practicing abstinence in any tangible number.

[PatSeg]

203. You have a very simplistic view of life

I'm not in that place in my life anymore, but when I was, it was never that simple. I'm tired. Maybe I could get into this at another time, but I need to get off this computer for a while.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

205. billions of people have this figured out, it is intensely simple

I don't think I have said anything even most feminists would disagree with:

1. Don't make babies who can't conceivably be cared for,
2. To this end use contraception,
3. Do not have sex with men who will not respect your reproductive choices.

Why I should have a place on the wall between Jack the Ripper and Bill Frist on the wall of great misogynists!

[PatSeg]

188. Sounds like you live in my reality

I tried to relate to what he was saying, but I had flashbacks that said something totally different. I guess the one who ends up pregnant for nine months has a different perspective and as a woman, I resent it when men put all the blame on women.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

190. what is it you object to?

Do you disagree on the basic biology?

[PatSeg]

198. Maybe you can't see it,

but you make it sound like it is predominantly women's fault that they get pregnant. I was raised with that attitude and it was very painful. I learned young that some men will do and say anything to get what they want and the consequences be damned. Maybe you should spend more time with your women friends. They'll tell you some stories that might give you a little insight. As for me, I don't care to revisit that time.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

202. I didn't say anything even close to that,

I said that women are in a position to insist that their partners be responsible and condoms are attainable to anyone and if their partners will not be responsible they should tell them to fuck off or fuck themselves.

If their partner simply refuses to be responsible, they should seek another one.

[varelse]

191. yeah, we have a live one here

I'm dropping it - this argument has already been made far more skillfully and with much more science behind it than I'm willing to dig up for his benefit.

[Hello_Kitty]

165. But no one here is doing that. Another strawman.

The OP and those who support her are saying that poor women should rely on their children as a retirement safety net, even though there's no practical reason for them to do so, other than in the imaginary scenario that exists in her, and their, minds.

You are right that the solution lies in unionization (IOW, the reduction of available labor) and subsidized contraception. But encouraging poor women to have fewer, or no, children wouldn't fit into her romantic Grapes of Wrath bizarro-world fantasy.

[varelse]

179. She did not say that poor women should rely on their children as a retirement safety net

She did say that poor people tend to rely more on their close relatives, friends, neighbors and family - in other words, on each other, than middle class and wealthy people.

This is what the OP actually said about poverty and its relationship to poor parents having kids:

I'm all for discouraging poor parents from having too MANY children, but that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that poor people shouldn't have any children AT ALL, because "nobody should have children that they can't afford to care for themselves." This is a shortsighted and selfish idea to possess; an idea that assumes that the only consequence will be less poverty. I don't think that's true. I think that if the poor stop having any children at all, the costs of supporting the poor would shatter the middle class and then THEY'D become the "new poor."

Regarding your statement about the OP viewing her children as a retirement resource: actually, her children are going to wind up supporting you and me as well!

Social Security is funded by a very regressive payroll tax - the working poor do not escape this tax, but the caps shelter some of the income of wealthier taxpayers. As the population ages, you, I, and all other childless retired folks will be competing for funds being generated by the OP's children. Because the generations after us (post-baby boom) are smaller, there will be a much smaller pool of funds coming in. The problem then will be elderly poor - should the majority of elderly Americans be expected to die young because we failed to save enough in retirement funds? Living into old age is a choice, too.

FYI: Your hostile and angry attitude toward the OP is out of synch with anything she's actually posted. She's a single, working mom who grew up in, and is still living in poverty; she is going to school and raising a child - but that does not mean that she is an abusive or irresponsible parent. Nor does it mean she is in any way encouraging others to be so.

[Hello_Kitty]

186. Poor people in the U.S. are NOT relying on each other.

They can't. Since most of them are relying on some type of gov't aid. The fact is that poor people in America ARE having children, and they are offering most of them up to the Gods of Commerce. Those kids (now adults) are working crappy low wage no-benefits jobs and having themselves and their families supplemented with the EITC, food stamps, and Medicaid. They aren't making enough to even think about putting dollars aside to help their parents out in old age.

[varelse]

189. Apparently, they do rely on each other in Lyric's neck of the woods at least

I know they do where I live - and that I was part of that network when I was poor. Especially in the case of many working poor, government assistance is either just below their income level or is inadequate if available at all. I knew one woman with five kids who waited eight years to get into assisted housing - she had been married but her husband was beating her and she had to leave.

It's much more common than you realize for families to share the duties of child care in order to increase hours worked (working two jobs etc) and to carpool, to name a couple of ways in which they network.

[Hello_Kitty]

194. Tell me how the woman in your example would not have fared better had she had no kids.

Tell me.

[varelse]

256. She had all 5 of these kids while married to a police officer with a good salary

and excellent benefits. They were high school sweethearts, but their children were not born into poverty - in fact, because she had extended family on both sides to help them, the kids did not go hungry or live in poverty, although money was tight. She, her family, her new husband, and the father of these children all love the kids. I would never ask a mother if she'd be better off without her children, because that would be very bad manners. However, in this case, her love for her children was obvious in everything she did and said. Their love for her was equally apparent.

I believe she is better off with the children than if they'd never been born - they were all beautiful kids and I am sure that the oldest two are lovely young adults now.

[Hello_Kitty]

265. That doesn't answer my question.

I'm sure she loves her kids and they're all wonderful people. That doesn't explain how having 5 children in an abusive marriage situation is more advantageous to a woman than having no children. Remember, the OP is about children being resources. And BTW, your example isn't consistent with her thesis since the woman with 5 children was not living in poverty to begin with.

[varelse]

268. Love is the answer

it's the same answer for the poor parents as for the rich. Most parents will tell you that despite all of the hardships and sacrifice associated with having kids, they would never go back and undo it, and love is the reason.

[Hello_Kitty]

270. That's very sweet but has fuck all to do with what I asked you.

Does having 5 kids (or any number of kids) make it easier or harder for a woman to escape an abusive relationship?

[varelse]

275. I never asked her that question

it probably made it harder for her to decide to leave him, yes. But then, by the time she'd realized that this relationship just was not going to improve and that she *had* to leave him, these children were already in the world. I do not believe she ever expressed any regret about that fact, either verbally or otherwise. She loves her kids, and they love her - luckily, her new husband loves all of them. It was a struggle, but the family was happy and doing well when I last saw her.

[PatSeg]

294. I've been a childless adult

as well as a mother of two. I know what it is like to not have children and though my path was difficult, I prefer having children to not having them. If someone prefers to not have children, I can understand that, but I can't understand how they would imply that they understand the choices that others have made or infer that they might be better off without children.

Tolerance of other people's choices would be a big step towards understanding and for the most part I've seen that in this thread.

And yes, the simple answer is "love is the reason"!

;)

[Hello_Kitty]

300. A hypothetical for you:

Say you had a good friend who you knew was being abused by her husband. They have no children at this time. And let's say she came to you for advice and would follow whatever you advised. She wants to have a child because she has always wanted to be a mother and give her love to a child and enjoy the considerable emotional gratification that would give her. But she is also trapped in an abusive marriage right now. Would you advise her to go ahead and get pregnant? Why or why not? Do you think having a baby would make it harder or easier for her to escape the abusive marriage?

[Quantess]

160. I don't understand why people are rec'ing this

It isn't a terrible argument, but there really are a lot more factors to consider.

[dysfunctional press]

169. some posters can only post holy gospel in the eyes of their flock.

the whole rec/unrec thing just seems...silly...to me.

but- some people seem to live and die by how many pats on the back they get on a random internet massage-the-ego board.

go figure...:shrug:

[winyanstaz]

167. K & R.....

and not to mention that through out history, when the poor are oppressed too much..revolutions happen. Somehow it is always the poor that say "enough" and descend upon the mansions and castles with the torches and pitchforks.

[PatSeg]

176. Those damn disgruntled masses!

[Bette Noir]

177. I'd argue with the premise that "poor people stay poor."

I've seen other figures saying that young people are poor, and then become more comfortable as they age. This was certainly true in my family, and in my husband's. Both my parents were poor as children, but retired comfortably in their 50s. My husband's father was a destitute immigrant, but died rich. I was homeless for most of my 20s, just barely stable in my 30s, and now in my 50s I'm doing okay.

[Quantess]

182. In recent decades, the poor have only become poorer.

Your generation may have been more likely to "become more comfortable" over time, but the American Dream has become less attainable.

[Kablooie]

200. Poor people should all be sterilized ...

so they don't become ill from unsanitary conditions.

But that has nothing to do with them having children or not.

[Cobalt-60]

201. I will not breed in poverty

Period.
If future generations want slaves and cannon fodder,
they'll have to get them elsewhere.

[Hello_Kitty]

206. One hopes that the 71 DUers (so far) who have rec'd this thread.

Are willing to sacrifice their own progeny to the Gods of Commerce.

[lillypaddle]

209. I had one kid, and had my tubes tied at 25

Why? Because as a single woman I knew I couldn't afford more, either financially or otherwise. The one child I had was able to have braces, go to a good private high school, and college. His dad & I were divorced by the time he was 4 years old, and we were typical middle class (or lower) people.

In January, when I broke my ankle, that kid (41 years old now) came to Atlanta from Lexington to help me for a while, then took my 2 dogs with him until I was able to care for them 4 months later. Did it occur to me that I would have been in even more dire straits without a son who could help? Yes. As I age, do I think about the fact that he has no siblings who might pitch in if needed? Yes.
But do I wish I had had more children, who wouldn't have been able to have some of the same things he got, just so more were there to help me? No.

Personally, I believe every child should be wanted, loved and cared for. And FWIW, "cared for" means dental & other medical care, and education. I think people should have as many children as they want, and can fully support.

[ProfessorGAC]

210. I Don't Have A Problem With Taxes

I don't have a problem with welfare coming from taxes.

I don't have a problem with any social safety net.

I also don't think people who can't financially support more kids should be responsible enough to not have any further children.

That makes your whole screed inapplicable to me, even though i share the basic sentiment.
GAC

[katkat]

211. two kids

That should be the max for anyone, except adding in adopted kids, for environmental reasons. That said, I can't imagine having kids if I knew I couldn't care for them financially.

Many many immigrants who started dirt poor worked their way up in a couple of generations to comfortable middle class lives. That, of course, was before companies shipped jobs overseas wholesale.

Refusing to buy foreign-made goods is a good start on fixing this.

[swilton]

218. In a nutshell - without the poor

All we would have is rich greedy elitist snobs fighting to get to the top of the pyramid.

We would have no people who understood tough luck and what it truly means to be needy and compassonate....this would greatly reduce the population of people who are sensitive (i.e., the artists)

[Daemonaquila]

219. The economic reasoning doesn't work.

If you had just stopped with the general idea that nobody (rich or poor) should have TOO MANY children, and your last paragraph, I would've been right with you. Those who claim that having kids should only be done if the parent(s) is over a certain income theshold are at best being patriarchal and narrow-minded. Wealthier people with kids get poor, middle class incomes are no guarantee that kids will be taken care of, and poor families bring up as many amazing kids (who sometimes wind up with a hell of a lot more compassion and common sense grounding) as those with more money.

But the idea that kids will take care of their poor parents when they're old, in a way that makes a socially significant economic impact, is simply not correct, Nor is it fair to assume that the kids will take care of them at all. (Doing the kind of work I do, I have a pretty darned good view of how multigenerational families in poverty care for each other, or not, and what government and private programs are indispensable no matter how well-intentioned family may be.) Nor would the system fail for lack of money if fewer kids were born. Of course there would be some adjustment in numbers - but these arguments make me *facepalm* as much as those we get from big business that whines about the need for a continually expanding consumer base, thinks that the economy can grow forever, etc. The economy will always adjust, as long as we face facts and make sure we take care of basic obligations, and stop spending crazily on corporate welfare. So will Social Security - if we stop raiding the fund to pay for other programs as a "loan" that we never intend to pay back but will never admit it.

In the end, let's just stop scapegoating each other. The poor aren't wrecking our economy by having too many kids and becoming a drain on public resources. It boggles the mind to think what could've been accomplished with putting just a year or two's worth of funding for the war back into taking care of people. If anyone tried, there would've been screaming from all aisles. But war? We gotta have that - let's pass the funding in a day.

[WVRICK13]

222. WOW

The poor are poor because of many reasons, among which is the continued abuse by the wealthy of the poor and the subsidizing of the wealthy by our tax system. I have to disagree with y our assessment of the children taking care of the elderly when social security isn't enough. I run a social services agency and a large percentage of poor senior citizens end up subsidizing their children and grandchildren. When the social security checks arrive the younger family members visit and take a lot of the cash. A remarkable number of the younger family members leave their children with elderly relatives to be raised. It is amazing to think of the reality of poverty. In the real world of poverty a small social security check is almost a windfall and is much more money and a more stable income than many of the younger family members have available to them. When elderly mom and dad run out of money because they gave it to their children and grandchildren there are programs to help them make it through the month like the Low Income Emergency Heat Program that will pay for heating fuel for mom and dad. Then there are often meals available at senior centers and food from food pantries. In our society it is easier for senior citizens to receive help by virtue of their age and societies view of the elderly. We put down and shame the young poor but the minute they are older, graying and on social security it is suddenly our duty to care for them through governmental and faith based programs outside social security. I am not saying this is wrong. If it weren't for these services entire families would freeze to death or starve. What I am saying is our government is pathetic. No one really bats an eye when we give billions to the wealthy so they can receive huge bonus checks, but we blame the poor for not being more motivated or for producing too many children. We have socialism in the US but it is for the poor.

The working poor subsidize the rest of the country by working for low wages and no benefits. We enjoy lower prices at places like the big chain stores and fast food joints because the poor make it possible. If the employees were paid fairly and given benefits there would not be things like the dollar menus at fast food places, in fact we would pay more for everything we buy. It is easy for us to not think about the abuse of the poor and our contribution to the situation. When you look at the reality of life in the modern world from the big picture it is easy to make the hypothesis that the poor are the foundation of our civilization. They are what makes the system work. Instead of paying fair wages and benefits it is cheaper to give them token subsidies through government programs. That way the can survive and continue being subjugated to serve those with higher incomes.

[GreenEyedLefty]

226. I have some random thoughts on this issue.

I have 3 kids and make no apologies for them. However, I believe in reproductive freedom for all women, including the complete and unfettered access to abortion.

If you ask 100 people with children why they had children, you'll get 100 different answers. Reproduction isn't necessarily a rational process, it just is.

This country's very economic foundation was based on free and/or cheap labor, and so there seems to be a "need" for low-wage earners in order to maintain the status quo.

There is a book titled "The Cunning of History" by Richard Rubenstein. It is a slim volume, just over 100 pages. It is pretty terrifying, and recommended for anyone concerned with poverty and surplus population.

The OP left out education as a means to lift people out of poverty. A well-funded public education system, particularly in poor communities, is absolutely essential.

[Lyric]

227. I do agree about education.

In fact, I firmly believe that attending a venue of higher education should count toward the work requirement for programs like TANF and Food Stamps. I also believe that the government should create a student loan program for welfare recipients that has a much lower interest rate and a much more managed schedule of repayment; $100 a month, regardless of income, for example. That way the people who have used education to leave poverty will have more resources to *stay* out of poverty. Coming from poverty means that they're already at-risk; I see nothing but good in creating a special program that helps reduce the risk of falling back into poverty.

:hi:

[Politicub]

234. Shore up social security to address the problem of inadequate elder care

rather than encouraging the poor to add more children to the brood.

IMHO, relying on an army of grown up children from poverty stricken households to care for their elderly parents strikes me as a naive notion. Some kids will do an outstanding job taking care of mom and dad in their golden years, but others will abandon their parents to fend for themselves.

Improvements to the the social security safety net to strengthen it would help the elderly poor more rather than requiring them to depend on the benevolence of their children.

And what about people without children, such as people who remain single for whatever reason, infertile couples or a wide swath of LGBT fold? These groups can add children to the family unit by adoption or other means, but it doesn't mean it should be a requirement for them to grow old with dignity.

Couples need to decide for themselves how large a family that they want to have based on a variety of criteria and no one should dictate how large or small a family that they should have. It seems irresponsible to me for the poor to expand their families with so many children that they can't take care of them adequately, but this doesn't mean that anyone should take this decision away from them.

But basing the decision to have children to provide elder care ignores the larger problem America needs to address to repair our social safety net.

Your essay also did not address the negative environmental impact of overpopulation. The toll on the environment of adding kids to provide care outweighs the benefits.

[Lyric]

251. I didn't address the environmental concerns of overpopulation because

those are concerns that are relevant to ALL classes--not just the poor. My essay was specifically about people who wish to commit acts of socioeconomic eugenics and limit the reproductive rights of the poor as a class. To be honest, the children of the wealthy probably cause as much (if not more) environmental damage than the children of the poor. How many poor children does it take to equal the carbon footprint of *just* Paris Hilton, for example? How many trips a year does she take in those private jets? Hummers? Those enormous, energy-hogging mansions? And that's just *one* person.

If we want to talk about encouraging responsible behavior for EVERYONE, then I'm all for it. But I think that the wealthy should go first. They have less need for multiple children, and they have much larger carbon footprints than the poor. I also think that limiting the effect (having several children) rather than the causes (poverty, lack of education, lack of access to services) is completely ineffective. If we fix the problem of poverty, then poor people won't be under pressure to have multiple children. This could be especially liberating for poor women.

It seems perfectly sensible to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

262. Then what was the point of your OP?

No one is advocating eugenics here. Your whole essay rests on a strawman premise - the supposed hordes of people on DU who hate poor people and want to sterilize them - that you made up so you could write it and get lots of praise and recs. Mission accomplished.

Moreover, if you are for contraception and access to abortion and encouraging poor women to limit the size of their families as you say you are, then you are kind of a hypocrite, since you posit that efforts to alter the reproduction patterns of poor people are an imposition upon their ability to rely on each other and create children as resources. I mean, what exactly is the purpose of making contraception and abortion available to any group of women other than to reduce the birthrate of that group?

[varelse]

277. The posts advocating eugenics for the religious poor were deleted (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

281. I didn't see those posts so I don't know if they were made in earnest or not.

I also don't know if they were from longtime DUers or newbie trolls so your anecdotal evidence of some deleted posts (and they were deleted as they should have been) is not proof that there is a serious pro-eugenics contingency on DU. I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the hordes of people here who want to sterilize the poor. The premise of the OP is a strawman.

[varelse]

285. They were not by new members (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

288. And they were deleted because it's not an acceptable statement on DU.

I'm the biggest curmudgeon on this board where families and kiddies are concerned. I'm practically Cruella fucking De Vil in the estimation of probably the majority of people responding to this thread. Yet I have never, at any time and you can check my posting history, advocated any sort of eugenics or coercive measures to stop anyone from any group from procreating. I find such a prospect repugnant and I'm just not seeing any measurable support for that sort of thing on DU.

[varelse]

289. In that case, the OP wasn't a response to your posts (nt)

[Whisp]

239. Lyric, I love you. What a wonderful and thoughtful post. nt

[hippywife]

257. Hi, sweetie.

Excellent OP and dead-on. Many in the middle-class forget what it takes to build and maintain community and are so isolated in their everyday existence. You and Rhythm are two of the richest people I know because you do have each other, LyricKid, and the community you really on.

Hell, if our parents would have waited to have kids until they could afford it, then more than half the people on this board wouldn't exist.

I wish you nothing but well, doll. You do know what it takes to build and support community and it has always shown in your heart and approach to a life so much less in comfort than many here could cope with.

Much love to you all. I think of you very often and really miss seeing you about.

[Whisp]

259. I think the super rich should be sterilized...

for thier spawn causes far more economic devastation than poor parents with children.
Imagine how much tax dollars could have been saved if the current banking CEOs never made their way through a birth canal, or the the millions and billions in scams like the Silverado savings and loan scandal that Barbara Bush squeezed through her gullet with Poppy's juices.

The savings would be enormous - the poor get a small drop in the bucket in aid compared to these oceans of predators.

[Lyric]

273. Well they certainly suck up more resources

and throw off more poison than the poor could ever hope to manage. However, I oppose forced reproductive limits as a matter of principle. I think the wealthy should be "encouraged" to have fewer (or no) children. Honestly, it's not like the wealthy NEED big families for support. And fewer rich heirs and heiresses jetting from LA to Paris for Tuesday brunch could only be a good thing.

:hi:

[Liberation Angel]

261. Overpopulatiom is NOT the problem:Human Beings are a Resource-global corporate fascism is Problem

Human Beings are a Precious and Valuable Resource.

This Earth if managed in an intelligent and wise and sustainable way could support many times the current global population with a much btter quality of life for all IF, and ony if, the resources were not controlled solely by a global corporate fascism which vir cause the global calamaity and blames it on the poor and the victims.

The myth of overpopulation and ancient Malthusian jibberish mathematics has been drilled into the brains of the left AND the right in America by the architects of genocide and "eugenics". The whole PURPOSE of the Holocaust was population control and slavery of the masses under global fascism.

The ARCHITECTS of the Third Reich are now in charge of the new Fourth Reich which controls global economics, resources, military and intelligence ops, technology, medicine, media, power (energy), and water, as well as dominating political power or at least (as in the case of the USA and most western nations but actually almost all) manipulating it to its own ends.

Population control, propaganda, and fascism go hand in hand with the myth that poor people or too many poor people are the problem.

Buckminster Fuller in his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" pointed out that there is plenty of room for lots of people and that with proper design and technology management we could have many more human beings on the planet and a sustainable and better quality of life for all of us (in a way which does not destroy the environment).

INSTEAD of viewing human beings and poor people as the problem we should identify the REAL ROOT CAUSES of the problem of "herding" the poor into cites and ghettoes, crowding them like rats, like in concentration camps, to meet the needs of the uber wealthy who live on islands or yachts or in the mountains away from the madding crowd.

Take a look at a globe. The Earth itself is mostly water. There is PLENTY of room and PLENTY of resources if ONLY THEY WERE MANAGED FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUMANITY INSTEAD OF FOR THE ELITE WHO DOMINATE THE REST OF US.

Overpopulation is the myth which makes fascism possible and acceptable to many.

In reality the problem is that the Fascist Fourth Reich can only function well if its killing machines and mind manipulation of the masses are well oiled with the blood of the sheeplike and lemminglike masses.

Keeping people believing that "overpopulation" is the problem instead of the fascist global ultra-rich is the slickest (and most heinously bloody and brutal) game in history so far.

Just ONE example: Imagine, if you will, how much ENERGY could be generated by human beings simply using their own strength to power generators. Human beings are energy storage machines and our bodies are tools and engines which can run and make things and create.

But global fascism and propaganda treats us all as useless eaters good only as consumers instead of creators of resources. It is ass-backwards but a very effective mindf*ck.

Overpopulation is the buzz word which makes fascism happy and keeps us fighting for scraps when we should be fighting for control of the resources and the power.

[Sinti]

271. Human Beings are a Precious and Valuable Resource!!!!!!!!

That's correct. I'm so happy to see someone else saying this. :loveya:

[Liberation Angel]

310. Thanks very much - it seems some here differ with that perspective

In a society where the rivh keep the rest of us starving it is hard to justify bringing children into it.

But it is our instinct for survival to have children for a reason. They are GOOD for us and LIFE CAN BE BEAUTIFUL if only we are in a community where we can make it harmonious and safe.

We have messed up this planet big time. But it was our leaders who did it without our permission or support.

To blame the victims is reprehensible. especially when it is society at large who makes them victims by their failure to bring down the evils of corporate fascism and corporatism.

[Sinti]

313. Before you can fix a problem - you have to realize there's a problem

People don't see that the systems are build upside down and they blame themselves for being inadequate. The talking heads blame them and they blame themselves. A man is never so ashamed as when he has to go home and tell his wife he lost his job.

Corporatism is a kind of sleight of hand - this kind of power is basically a magic trick. "Look this way at this shiny thing, while I take everything you've got for several generations. You think you can stop me? We rejected the right of kings long ago, corps are the new kings and they don't mind throwing their weight around to show it.

If you are growing vegetables, and you have a given amount of land, the more people you have working to grow those same vegetables, the less work there is, but it does not diminish the output of the plot. It would actually enable you to work more land and grow more vegetables - this is true for making shoes, etc.

There has to be a way to help people understand such simple facts. Everything you do shouldn't have to enrich a handful of people - it should enrich all people involved. The more people there are involved, the more you have to share. Many hands make light work, that's why we did the whole division of labor thing. It is not necessary to squeeze every ounce of spirit out of every human being you employ.

If only there was a way to get this simple truth through to people, and make it stick, this whole nightmare would be over. People will recognize it, and then forget it within a week. It's amazing and horrifying. If we could open our eyes we'd realize we have a lot of work to do to clean up the mess we've made.

[Liberation Angel]

318. Very well put, Sinti! Wish I could K&R your post

I have worked in human rights and antipoverty programs/projects for years, primarily in the inner cities but also on Native "Reservations".

In many inner city areas families are the one constant ting holding human beings together - they share housing, food, clothes, and whatever else can make their lives more bearable: there is often a strong spiritual component (often religious but not always in and institutional way: more compassion etc.. Poverty causes many folks to be MORE humane and caring and children become their hopes and dreams for a decent future and many many people, especially women, work extremely hard to maintain a decent but simple quality of life.

Poverty as an institution is designed by the elites only to keep people from becoming organized and powerful enough (well enough resourced) to bring about an equitable society.

Your words are exceptionally insightful and wise.

[Sinti]

266. The truth is poverty itself should be seen as intolerable.

No one should live in poverty, it's an unnecessary and unnatural phenomenon. Human beings CHOOSE to have poverty as part of their existence, just as they CHOOSE to permit extreme wealth to gather. There are poor people, because people are left idle. They have no jobs, or jobs that pay far too little.

No human being should ever be impoverished for lack of usefulness. Employers that pay wages that are too low to maintain life should be looked down upon as vermin. At this time, we all survive by the favor of a handful of individuals who control far too much of the resources and land. Oddly enough, the more affluent nations become, the more access they have to health care and contraception, the fewer children they have.

Don't ever give me the argument about people creating pollution and limitations of resources - we create DISPOSABLE items. Actions speak louder than words. We could create everything to last as long as possible, be recyclable, and produce zero waste in manufacture. This doesn't get looked into, let alone done, because it is not profitable to those that own every thing.

People often take care of their parents/grandparents. This has nothing to do with income level. I wouldn't have let any one else take care of my grandmother or mother. Unlike for some here, it wasn't a punishment or a theft of my youth - I was in my early 20s. Since when is caring for aging relatives some sort of slavery? They are family... of course you care for them. Nursing homes are meant for people who did not have children. I can't imagine what kind of emotional pain it would have put them through to put them somewhere as they aged and faded into the sunset. What kind of mean families do you have to come from to see it that way? Wow... culture shock.

Lyric, the whole world is build upside down. We have to fix it before it kills the whole human race. The important thing in having kids is loving the kids you have - like pets I think there is a limit to how many you can properly care for. My personal limit was one - I'm like that. For others I'm sure it's different.

Edited to add the word "of"

[Hello_Kitty]

295. Q: If families do such a bang-up job of taking care of each other

Then why do we have programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, ADFC, EITC, and various other types of government assistance to the poor, disabled, and elderly? Why do so many poor, working, and even middle class people depend so much on government subsidies and entitlements to survive and have a relatively comfortable retirement? Why did FDR find it necessary to create Social Security? What was the situation at the time that necessitated setting up a government insurance program to prevent old people from starving or freezing to death? I'm not saying this to cast judgment or imply that families don't want to help each other. I'm pointing out that we created things like SS because families COULDN'T provide for their elderly relatives. The notion that your children are material resources and a means to provide for you in retirement is patently and demonstrably untrue, and that goes for people of all classes.

[Liberation Angel]

301. Germany 1932. Problem? 5 Million Unemployed: Too many people. Solution?: The Final One

Wow! 5 Million Unemployed but then 5 Million exterminated. Full employment

A Perpetual War economy! (A Thousand Year Reich requires a perpetual war mindset for the population in charge)



The problem I have with the mantra that overpopulation is the problem and not resource management is that it denies the eugenics movement and genocide mentality of the global elites who want everything for themselves. They do not care if people suffer or die and in fact they PREFER if largw swaths of people die because then life gets better for them (as long as TOO MANY don't die to do all the lifting and consuming and paying of taxes and slaving away).



What was the German excuse, "room to Breathe" or some such Teutonic gibberish. (Liebenstraum?)

Sure - just kill al the subhumans, the poor, the wretched and the undesirables (and oh yeah kill anyone who opposes or might oppose you too)

That will give you room to breathe and live!

See my post linked beloe foe a deeper dissertaion on this and I hope it helps those whose guts tell them that population reduction is just an excuse for global murder and genocide instead of having humane and intelligent and fair systems in place globally for everyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7103510&mesg_id=7110782

The problem we have is NOT Poor People using too many resources!

It is RICH people using up and wasting EVERYTHING!

Wasichu! (It means those who waste everything and is the name Native peoples on this continent gave to the Europeans (primarily the British/Nordic ones).

[Hello_Kitty]

308. Godwin's Law, bigtime, on that one.

People who think the world would be better off if the birthrate declined are Hitler? Really?

And the post you linked to is yet another strawman to add to the rather large village of them that's been assembled here. NO ONE is blaming the poor for climate change and peak oil. NO ONE is suggesting the poor be exterminated or eliminated.

[Liberation Angel]

309. I beg to differ. You seem to have misconstrued everything I have said

I never said the birthrate should not decline: I think i made it pretty clear that I support education for family planning and access to services to that end.That would improve the congestion of populations crowded together by global fascism like rats.

What I have said here is that fascists (and Hitler was a fascist) today in power use overpopulation as the boogeyman buzzword to justify policies that reduce populations by cruelty and barbarism: cruel policies like no health care and no family planning health clinics with federal funds.

Lots of middle class blame the poor for EVERYTHING wrong with this society instead of blaming the rich and the rich use that to kep policies which hurt the poor and help the rich while onvincing the middle it is helping them too.

To say NO ONE is suggesting the poor be exterminated or eliminated HERE AT DU, does not mean that in the halls of evil power that population reduction and eradication in some areas is not fostered and even encouraged; genocide, war, starvation, famine, disease, death by pollution ALL preventable except for the fact that corporofascism thrives and profits from them and justifies it with the argument that there are too many "useless eaters" and parasites and that darwinism, survival of the fittest, means the most vicious are the most powerful and therefore superior and deserve to destroy the poor because the poor are WEAK

The analogies of eugenics and fascism to population reduction by evil means in the name of reducing the global population to "save the earth" are apt.

Godwin was wrong sometimes as you HAVE to raise the issue of Naziism when it is in fact relevent.

Population control, eugenics and naziism are subjects that are not irrationally connected. In fact it would irrational NOT to look at and examine the connections.

[PatSeg]

319. Yes the middle class does tend to blame the poor

and a lot of that comes from fear, fear that the poor will take something from them, and on some level they fear it could happen to them. They have to convince themselves that the poor are that way because of some flaw in their character or genetics. That fear is fed by the rich and powerful.

[Liberation Angel]

303. Wasichu _ Is this what we are?

The meaning of Wasichu....

"my name is wasichu. i know thee, i have found thee, & i will not let thee go."

Wasichu
The first people who lived on the northern plains of what today is the United States called themselves "Lakota," meaning "the people," a word which provides the semantic basis for Dakota. The first European people to meet the Lakota called them "Sioux," a contraction of Nadowessioux, a now-archaic French-Canadian word meaning "snake" or enemy.

The Lakota also used the metaphor to describe the newcomers. It was Wasi'chu, which means "takes the fat," or "greedy person." Within the modern Indian movement, Wasi'chu has come to mean those corporations and individuals, with their governmental accomplices, which continue to covet Indian lives, land, and resources for private profit.
Wasi'chu does not describe a race; it describes a state of mind.

Wasi'chu is also a human condition based on inhumanity, racism, and exploitation. It is a sickness, a seemingly incurable and contagious disease which begot the ever advancing society of the West. If we do not control it, this disease will surely be the basis for what may be the last of the continuing wars against all people that believe in a better way!
...excerpt from Wasi'chu, The Continuing Indian Wars,
Bruce Johansen and Robert Maestas
with an introduction by John Redhouse

[Kitsune]

311. Frankly, I think EVERYONE should stop having children.

We're way over sustainable planetary carrying capacity. If we want to live through the next century, we need to stop adding another billion people to the scales every few years.

[Pushed To The Left]

312. Was too late to recommend, but I agree! Reproductive rights are for all women, not just the wealthy

Anybody who disagrees shouldn't claim to be totally pro-choice.

[butterfly77]

322. As far as Republicons are concerned...

Poor people shouldn't have sex,thus they don't need any birth control.