So I'm reading this book called The Betrayal of Work about low income workers. What if all the problems attributed to single mothers were actually caused by the fact that so many of these women have to work jobs in which they are underpaid. Say a woman has 3 children. She'd have to work at least 30-40 hours in order to make at least enough for rent and food, right? Well, the lowest rent you can get is about 600 if you are not living in low income housing. Most people make about $8.50 on such a job. That small amount of money for 3 kids who grow practically every five seconds and constantly eat. Such a woman would have difficulty getting childcare, rides to and from work, not to mention getting leave if one of her children were sick. The children themselves, stuck in a low income bracket would not fair well in society. They would be under prepared, like peasants or serfs back in Europe in the middle ages. Is it any wonder the crime rate is high among people with low incomes? It's not a genetic predisposition towards crime. It's poverty! It's growing up without. What if we paid workers better. Gave them benefits. Cut the salaries of CEOs who get 4 times what an average worker makes and used it to make sure that each worker had sick leave or health insurance, not to mention childcare. Wouldn't this lead to better workers and better products? I'm not suggesting handouts or rewarding people for wanting to take the easy way out which is the way many believers in pure capitalism respond. It's simple logic. It makes no sense that so many people in America work and still have barely enough money to survive. Helping these workers would improve America! They'd have more disposible income, which would help the economy. They'd do their jobs better. After all, the more the gap between the rich and the poor widens, the worse it gets. IT increases the possibility of society collapsing. Trickle down just doesn't work. It's not right for a generation of college and high school grads to have nothing to look forward to but working the worse possible job with the least amount of benefits. It's unfair that child care workers, people who take care of the eldery and clean schools, not to mention help keep food on America's table are not treated with more respect! If this country is to get better, if we really want to do something about crime, apathy, and so many things that plague America we're going to have to do something about this issue! This is what is causing the break down of society, and it has been for a long time. This. Not gayness, not liberals. But greed. It has to stop.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I certainly don't know much about economics, but if you try to increase the pay of the average worker, the cost of products will go up. Unfortunately, CEOs are a marked minority class, so if you reduce their pay 10-fold, you will only have enough extra cash to pay a worker an extra $100 in a year, for example.
As someone pointed out recently (I believe it was in person, not hatrack).... if you really want to take the first step in the pay of the average american worker, be willing to buy American goods. I'm usually not one for the "Buy American" campaign, but he made a good point. When you buy cheap goods from Wal-mart, the money goes straight into the pockets of the corporation, with minute amounts going to the walmart employees, and a minute amount going across seas to pay for sweat-shop workers (or workers with considerably lower cost of living in another country). By buying American goods, you help keep the money circulating in the US.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It seems to solution would involve more than jus buying American goods. Consumers themselves have to be aware of this problem but many just don't seem to care.... It would involve sweeping changes such as better eduaction for low income people, after school programs, even manditory volunteerism for all kids at a certain age.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, you could also make the argument that people who cannot afford children should not actually be having children.
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
Actually, I saw a really neat editorial in our paper a few weeks ago about how increasing minimum wages isn't the way to help low-income families because it actually increases the competition from skilled workers. They argued that offering more free/low cost skills training was the best way to help low-income families by offering them more job possibilities.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Manditory volunteerism solves nothing. Absolutly nothing. It is supposed to teach you that it is great to volunteer your time (sweat and tears too), and makes you a better person, a fuller member of the world. That is complete BS. Manditory volunteerism teaches you that people will mandate all sorts of stupid stuff. That 30 hours of volunteering is all takes to improve yourself. The bottom line is if there are places that are willing to take volunteers who are kids of a certain age, some of them will volunteer, some of them won't, and they will all mantain that it is pointless and idiotic to mandate it.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Even minimum wage is livable, so long as you don't try and live beyond your means.
This includes children.
I think there are laws of supply and demand, even in terms of employers/employees. I don't think most owners/executives are overpaid, and I don't think many workers are underpaid. They're paid exactly what the job deserves.
I'm rather happy that there are no laws in our Constitution that state that we're required to have a safety net to catch everyone who makes bad decisions or has no desire or motivation to educate themselves and contribute to society.
I mean, I definitely have sympathy for single mothers. Mine had three of us, but I never heard her whine about what she was "owed". She just accepted that she needed to work harder, went out and learned a few things, and found a job with benefits that paid the bills.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But what if you do have a job, work hard, try to find other jobs and don't just succeed? America seems to say anyone can reach the top as long as they work hard. This isn't true anymore. It really is not. With the prices of things increasing and the pay staying the same how can anyone get anywhere? Even if you do live way below your means. It would be good idea if taxes were cut for low income workers. After all, what do you do if you are college educated but still can't get a good job?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Christy -- right now its pretty much a moot point, as the minimum wage is far below what even unskilled workers are typically paid; competition from skilled workers wouldn't kick in unless it was around $1 or more higher.
However, I agree with the general point. Minimum wage laws are a generally bad way for approaching pay problems except for insuring a certain floor to prevent extreme exploitative situations -- as an economic application they're useless, but as a social one they're not. I'd like to see them go up $.25, myself, but not much more than that.
But yes, free and low cost targeted job training, and job placement services, are more beneficial by far than large increases in the minimum wage.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What exactly is the point of having a minimum wage law? Is it that we set the minimum at a level that would support 1 person if they work full time?
Or, is it intended to be enough money to support the average size family with a minimum level of food and shelter?
Or is it something else entirely?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
My parents divorced when I was 10 and my sister was eight. Prior to the divorce, we lived in a nice four bedroom home in a upper middle class neighborhood, my Mom stayed at home and my father owned a Real Estate agency. Mom drove a new Chevy and Dad had a new Jaguar.
In the divorce, which was dragged on and on by my parents and the attorneys, basically my Mom and Dad ended up penniless. Mom got the house (and the mortgage payments), Dad got his car and a $500 a month child support bill. He also had to sell his business.
Mom had to go to work and pulled minimum wage as a check-out girl at an autoparts place. Dad had to move back in with his parents and went to work in construction again.
We went from very comfortable to desperately poor in less than a year. Mom busted her butt working overtime and Dad did, too, having at times to pawn things to make the child support payments. Somehow along the way, the water and lights never ever got turned off and Dad never missed a child support payment, he also never missed picking us up every other weekend, even though it meant he had to drive two hours to come get us, two hours more to take us back to his house, and then turn around on Sunday afternoon and make the round trip again.
They were doing this at the age I am now and I can't help but marvel at what they did when they had to do it. Both are doing better now by far, but I can't help but be amazed at how they could dig down and do what had to be done.
And somewhere, along the way, they raised a couple of pretty good kids. No arrests for either my sis or I, both have had fulfilling careers, Sis has a college degree, and we're fairly well adjusted and happily married.
Sometimes, single Moms and Dads, can get the job done, it just depends on how hard they pursue their commitments. My respect grows for my folks every single day.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Depends on who you talk to .
IMO, a minimum wage law exists to prevent extreme exploitative situations -- for instance, where a (not illegal) immigrant nanny is paid an abysmal hourly wage by people who terrorize her. Situations that are not common, are not subject to economic adjustments due to extreme externalities, and are generally deplorable. Such situations will always exist even with minimum wage laws, but if even a few are prevented, its worth it.
However, that only applies if the minimum wage is kept below what an unskilled worker doing manual labor makes. Which I am oh-so-happy to report is typically between $5.75 and $6.50 right now.
Once the minimum wage becomes competitive, it creates a whole nest of problems. It must be kept below a competitive value, but not too far below, to have a (small) good effect.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Syn,
As a single mother myself, I would propose that the best way out of poverty for single mothers is not through increasing minimum wages, but increasing their ability to do jobs that are above minimum wage. Education and training.
When I first became a single parent, I knew that I had lots of knowledge and skills, but I had no marketable skills. I could barely pull $7 per hour, and that wouldn't pay child care for three kids.
So I found a way (with a support network) to return to college and complete my degree in a more lucrative field, and then secure a job that WOULD support my kids.
Don't just give them an increase for what are minimum wage jobs -- teach them and help them to rise above entry level jobs into jobs that will truly support the family.
Farmgirl
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I highly recommend the book "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich.
Ehrenreich, a college-educated successful single woman, left her home, took the cheapest lodgings she could find, and accepted whatever jobs she was offered as a woefully inexperienced homemaker returning to the workforce to see if minimum wage was something a person could live on.
She went from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, working as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. She never put her education or job history on her resumes, she took whatever job was available at the time and used only what money she earned to support herself.
The biggest problem in each case was housing. Food wasn't that big a deal, she had no kids, no pets, no designer clothes to keep up on, but she found herself working long hours and more than one job to be able to sleep indoors.
She lists her income and her weekly bills throughout.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have to read that book. Reskilling might not be helpful to a majority of workers. The largest increase of jobs are in service positions, not in computer positions or things like that. One solution would be to spend less money towards prisons and more towards schools since education would be a good tool to prevent crime before it even starts.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh, OSC-fan.... One day you'll learn that not all problems can be solved with chess.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The minumn wage also effects some union contracts.
Many of the things that people are saying we should provide are things athat at least in the days of yore were provided by the church or the extended family.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I really don't think being a feminist applies to the situation OSC-fan describes, but to each their own.
AJ
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am not talking about charity, about handouts. I'm talking about at least providing a living wage or beyond. I'm talking about the illogic involved in manufacturing products that people cannot afford to buy because their wages are too low and are used primarily for surviving. Think of it this way, a wealthy person can buy a car in cash. A not so wealthy person has to practically rent a car from some back or the like, which, according to my limited observation, raises the price of the car. If a person gets laid off from their middle class job and has to take a job making about $8.50 how can they afford to pay for their car, let alone rent and clothes? Eventually this will lead to a collapse if the wages of CEOs keeps getting bigger because they cut corners in order to produce products. Not only will less people be able to afford to buy products, but the products will also be inferiorly produced. Pure laisez faire capitalism is ineffective. Plain and simple.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A lot of people don't have families, sometimes at all and other times for all intents and purposes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Because not everyone has that sort of supportive family Plus it's the snake swallowing his tail. Low income jobs have a negative impact on families and societies, people have to get such jobs because they don't always have enough support from their families. Even if people lived in perfect 2.5 nuclear situations it still wouldn't change the fact that it's good business and beneficial to the country to make sure people can at least afford to do more than just scrape buy! It does an extreme disservice to people who come out of college and DON"T want to rely on family only to find that they'll never, ever get a slice of the American Pie that's why America has to live up to the concept that anyone can succeed and not just make lip service about it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Single moms need help. I don't think we do our society any good by making it so they have to work two jobs to feed their family, because they they are never WITH their family and the best thing we can do for children is have their mothers with them more.
Education and training, are absolute necessities. Tough enforcing of child support payments. Affordable, quality child care so that the hours she's gone she isn't worried about who is taking care of our kids.
Daycare is at a ridiculous state in our society. The workers rarely make much more than, heh, minimum wage. Most are completely unskilled. The turnover rates are astronomical. Yet, if we require day care workers to have a degree in early childhood education, no one will be able to afford it.
Someone suggested lowering the taxes on single parents? They rarely pay any income tax. After head of household, childcare credit, child tax credit, a single parent can usually get by without much in tax.
Though I have an unrelated rant about the childcare credit, I'll save it for another thread. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC fan, if they were actual feminists they would use birth control. I don't think most feminists are in this minimum wage category. They should be, but they get most of their education from TV which gives them neither a sound feminist philosophy nor family values. It gives them whatever will keep them coming back.
Nor is the media entirely to blame. I think it's not too farfetched to say a lot of these women were raised with TV as a babysitter, which is why they turn to it to learn about life.
I obviously think my own religiously oriented family values are best, but living a feminist philosophy with integrity at least keeps one from being a victim. But the media addiction cycle just traps someone into shrinking a little more from their potential as the programs bring back to them what they find irresistable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Besides, the situation they find themselves is just a consequence of their own choices, people should stop making excuses for other people, they should instead let them carry the weight of their responsibilities on their own shoulders.
Well, choices are always made within contexts. If one wants people to make good choices, there's a lot to be said for setting up systems that enable them to make better choices.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
On daycare, I think the cost could be controlled by letting folks with education in the field supervise more children. In our state, I think a licensed center can have 6 children per adult, with no more than 2 per adult being under 18 months.
But I think onsite daycare is an often talked about but seldom implemented necessity. Or, alternately, telecommuting. There was a lot more discussion of this when the economy was better.
Though if you have a chronically sick child, extended family or neighborly support is critical. You can't take a sick child to an institutional daycare.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Again, it's not the media, it's not nessasarily personal choices, especially if you have someone who is single and struggling to be independent. It would do no harm to let people be truly independent by paying them enough, providing them with healthcare and with childcare if they need it. By giving them support, lowering their taxes so they can stay off welfare. Furthermore, not every single mother has parents she can turn to... It's complicated. There are thousands of reasons why a mother is force to raise children on her own that have little to do with, "I think i'm going to have a baby today, why not go and find someone and have lots of unprotected sex with them?" There's the death of a spouse, divorce, changes in circumstances. Not to mention families with fathers that either work so much on 2 or 3 jobs that they don't even get seen or don't really work at all... It's complex!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you keep in mind that "being held responsible for those choices" really means something like "driven to a life of crime" or "starving to death in the street," you'll understand why people are discussing safety nets.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
OSC fan, you must consider the context in which the choice was made, as CT pointed out.
People can make bad decisions and it's not because they're lazy or stupid or rebellious. It's because at the time, they thought they were doing the right thing. Only later did it turn out to be wrong.
Sure, stereotypical single moms exist, the ones that are poorly educated, were sleeping around, maybe even addicted, and had a kid and now are existing on public assistance. But there are also struggling women whose husbands have died or abandoned them who are trying their hardest to care for themselves and their kids. Can we extend help to some and not the others? What about redemption, I've known many a person who made mistakes in their life and yet later turned it all around.
Will you say to this young woman "Because you made that one mistake, we will not help you, you must suffer your entire life. And not only that, but we're going to make your children suffer too, because while you're working those two jobs to support yourself, they're going to be in a daycare filled with underpaid, uncaring workers."
Do you really think that's the way to go?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ever read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn? Some people might think it's shameful to ask for help... Some people might not even be aware that such resources exist, or they try them and get turned down... Like I said, it's complex, but if society doesn't try to take care of its weakest members they basically can rise up and destroy us. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Getting rid of welfare would make matters worse, so one solution is spend less money punishing people and more trying to pervent them from failing in the first place. It's not to say it will prevent all instances, but it's a start
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Do you really think that's the way to go?
I think it's probably a great way to maximize the number of kids who start out behind the eight-ball, themselves unlikely to be making the healthiest choices.
I am much, much more committed to the ideal of everyone starting out on a fairly level playing field than with micromanaging consequences for other people who I know little about. Knowing that increasing the literacy rate of women has the strongest impact of any factor in reducing poverty makes me much more interested in setting up a system to promote literacy than with the specific decisions made by a given individual woman.
[ February 26, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: The number of births to unmarried women reached a record high of 1,365,966 in 2002, up 1 percent from 2001. This increase reflected the growing number of unmarried women rather than an increase in the rate, which was stable at 44 births per 1,000 unmarried women. The birth rate for unmarried teenagers continued to decline.
The teen birthrate falling is due to increased education, I think. A few years back the CDC was worried that abortion rates were falling. Their first hypothesis was that picketing of clinics was intimidating clients. But it turns out there are just fewer teen pregnancies. Either abstinence or condoms are working.
[ February 26, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
OSC-fan:
Then get to it. There are around 80,000 children out there needing adoption every year who aren't adopted. If you're serious about adopting children that need help, I hope you've already filed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
pooka, I know you may be going elsewhere with the quote, but I rejoice every single time I see this:
quote: The birth rate for unmarried teenagers continued to decline.
Isn't that just awesome? I mean, I know there are other things to worry about, and I know we may disagree about what the causes are, but hey ... fewer babies having babies means fewer premature births, fewer incidents of abuse, and so on. Yum-my! I should stop for the day and go back to bed, while I'm still happy.
[Ah, you edited. Pretty clearly we are on the same page. *high-fives
PS I want to live in pooktopia, so I can be a pooktopian. ]
[ February 26, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Synesthesia, if society as a whole starts ranking a certain behavior low on their social scale, the phenomenon decreases, and we've seen other societies having this approach and be successful.
But here in the USA such things are considered ok, that's why the problem is so widespread.
OK OSC-fan, here at hatrack you don't say stuff like that without the facts to back it up. Please tell me what societies that you are touting and then tell me their place on the scale of lazzes faire economics. I am going to hazzard a guess that all of them are MUCH more socialistic in their entire goverment than the US. NOT LESS. They provide MORE safety nets not less.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I got a little carried away with the "z's" above. I was typing fast. I'm still waiting for OSC-fan's facts though.
*taps foot impatiently*
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Is anybody else having a hard time realizing that I'm siding with the liberals against a conservative view? Me, the champion of personal responsibility?
I guess we all have our limits. OSC-Fan has gone way too far over the line for me.
No matter what you might think of their mothers, those children didn't choose to be in that situation. And, you say your solution is to adopt her child? What if she doesn't want to give up her child? Are we going to now say mothers must give up their children against their will? (In this I am not talking about abuse or neglect issues, that's a totally separate issue)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
What I will say sounds very harsh. Please do realize that I myself am an empathetic person, who crys after seeing a documentery on the poor. Nonetheless, emotion must be kept seperate from law.
And what I have to say is this: I feel bad for the children. But I will not tolerate governemnt stealing money from me at gun point to give it to the children. That is charity. The government is forcing me to give charity. That is socialistic, and a violation of my rights. It's my money. And government has no right to steal money from me.
Ah, but then, what about the children? Yes, I feel bad for them--and I give my own money, currently around 1/10 of it, to them. I do that because I want to. And that's how it should be. It's too bad that they are poor, but it's not government's responsibility to steal money and give it to charity.
And furthermore, it's not my fault that this mother decided to have children. But now that she does have them, I am glad to support them. But I am not glad to have my money forced away into their hands.
Giving charity should, in a capitilistic society, be a personal choice. And, this is the part that will get me castigated, if people end up in a situation where they have nothing, and no one is willing to give them money, then those people will die. That they will die does not give government the permission to steal from me to support them.
Nickel and Dimed is a propoganda book. The person even states that she wrote the book with the intention of finding out about the poor's plight. Hardly an unbiased approach. I do not have it on me, so there will be no detailed critique, at least unless people want it.
To summarize my ramble in point by point form:
a) Government does not have the responsiblity of giving charity (though I do allow for exceptions for mentally insane people and similar) b) Giving charity is a personal commitment c) Hence, the government taking my money to give it away is wrong and a violation of my rights
[ February 26, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Nickel and Dimed is a propoganda book. The person even states that she wrote the book with the intention of finding out about the poor's plight. Hardly an unbiased approach.
Ahhhh, me - what HAS happened to our education system these days?
At least give the author points for clearly stating her purpose and intent in researching (via life experience) and writing about the topic. That's a bit more honest that most corporate-funded statistical analysis that finds its' way into the elite research journals . . .
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I am horribly offended at your insinuation that I am an idiot, a fool, a by-product of the current educational system.
quote: At least give the author points for clearly stating her purpose and intent in researching (via life experience) and writing about the topic. That's a bit more honest that most corporate-funded statistical analysis that finds its' way into the elite research journals . . .
She did the experiment not interested in surviving, but in being humiliated and upset so she could write a book that made people feel bad. I don't know. There are people in Russia, in Mexico, and India, who make much less than she did. Somehow, not only do they survive, but a lot of them are happy. There are no statistics of happiness, but if you look at Mexican lower class having a party, they are having FUN. They are enjoying themselves.
Anyway, I feel bad for you. You have such a warped viewpoint of the world that you have to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as brainwashed by an educational system. I hope you get past this psychological block. Maybe if you hurried to a psychiatrist, and spent the rest of your life under care, you will.
Good luck.
(((Shan)))
Get better soon.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing.. pure capitalism is ineffective! IT wastes the environment, it tries to produce things at the cheapest way posible. We might as well go back to a system of slavery. Look at it this way, we have to pay taxes in order to keep the government running. However, When it comes to people who are low income, their tax dollars should, in my opinion stay with them. Mostly it's because I earn so little money. The fact is that social programs are nessasary, otherwise... things would be much worse than the way they are now. If these children don't get the best education and resources they can, but not nessasarily will, grow up on the very bottom and if that happens... Crime results..
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Phanto, I don't think you understand the concept of value very well.
People in many of those countries are able to survive on far less because the value of their money is much greater in certain ways -- wrt shelter, in particular. You cannot except in highly unusual circumstances find shelter in the united states for the price you can in most less developed countries. Even if all other prices were the same (which they typically are not -- transportation even on the public system is almost always several times more expensive, for instance), its possible for someone living in the US to make a lot more money and still be less able to provide the basics.
To whit, when US_Shelter_Cost - Other_Shelter_Cost > US_Income - Other_Income such a situation would arise (assuming all non shelter costs are equal, which has already been observed is not so in favor of the people in other countries)
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Sorry to wander off topic, but just out of curiosity...
quote:Isn't that just awesome? I mean, I know there are other things to worry about, and I know we may disagree about what the causes are, but hey ... fewer babies having babies means fewer premature births, fewer incidents of abuse, and so on. Yum-my! I should stop for the day and go back to bed, while I'm still happy.
Emphasis mine. When I was pregnant I was reassured many times that I had every chance of delivering a healthy baby and was not considered a high risk pregnancy. Is there a higher risk for premature births among teens due to physical reasons or because of other factors like poor nutrition, drug abuse, and/or not getting regular care?
Oh, and that news makes me happy too .
Posted by farmerdave (Member # 4423) on :
hi hope i can drag this out of a my muddled brain, but in relation to phantos government stealing his money for forced charity, what right does anyone have to hog a disproportionate amount of resources to create this wealth thereby denying it to anyone else. As to the low income/wages implementation of a fair days work for a fair days pay would be good, shame the worlds not fair though.
[ February 26, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: farmerdave ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*pat pats phanto* There, there, dear - take a deep breath and relax - I won't tweak your nose anymore. I didn't realize how sensitive you were feeling. I interpreted your comments as hardline and responded accordingly. My apologies.
Now - about the book.
I thought it was a good read and had important things to say, particularly to those folks that maybe have not tried to make ends meet on a minimum wage job that offers no medical, dental benefits or leavetime. And as she reports, she started off better than most. A car and an initial budget so that she could afford first/last and deposit. She also really drives home the point that the despair many people in poverty live with did not affect her - she KNEW she had an out if things were too tough. Her goal in writing this book was to try living like the working class poverty ridden(as it were), to see if it could be done, if it were possible, and to report back to the readers on her experiences. Her book was never intended to present a "numbers" study of people in poverty. There's plenty of those. She did intend to open some eyes. I think that's a good thing. And needed.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Synesthesia: Some one with the low income, like we are discussing here doesn't pay federal income tax. They may even make some money from it. They do pay local and state taxes. If low income people did not pay local tax, there would be some local goverments that would have zero (or near zero) revenue. Sales taxes are payed by everyone equally, there is no effiecent way to reduce the poor's tax burden here. Other than what is already done in some places. Take PA for example. In Penn. there is a statewide sales tax of 6% (Philly and Pittsburgh have a 7% sales tax imposed by the state instead of the 6% supposedly to pay for the sports stadiums built in those cities). This tax is on everything purchased except food (prepared food is taxed), and clothing.
There are other programs that they can get some income / stuff from too. WIC, foodstamps, foodbanks, etc. WIC certainly has more than enough funding given that it is running tv ads.
The contuined insinuation that the poor are being kept in poverty by the tax system just doesn't hold water. Further more you give justification for the poor to pay some taxs. You said "we have to pay taxes in order to keep the government running." we in this case being society. Are the poor not part of society?
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote: hi hope i can drag this out of a my muddled brain, but in relation to phantos government stealing his money for forced charity, what right does anyone have to hog a disproportionate amount of resources to create this wealth thereby denying it to anyone else. As to the low income/wages implementation of a fair days work for a fair days pay would be good, shame the worlds not fair though.
Who exactly is hogging these resources? The rich invest their money, they don't stuff it under their beds.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Still waiting for OSC-fan's facts...
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Emphasis mine. When I was pregnant I was reassured many times that I had every chance of delivering a healthy baby and was not considered a high risk pregnancy. Is there a higher risk for premature births among teens due to physical reasons or because of other factors like poor nutrition, drug abuse, and/or not getting regular care?
Hey, ladyday! As far as I know, the higher risks for the pregnancy of a teenager are due to comorbid factors (more likely to have STDs, be using recreational drugs, and especially much less likely to have good prenatal care).
And may I say, with all sincerity, that I wish all mothers could be half the mother you are.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yeah -- I'm still reeling over OSC-fan's post of:
quote:Unless something happens that is beyond their control" could be considered the death of a spouse; in which case I understand.
But I thought we were talking about single mothers by choice.
Divorce is a choice unless it's extremely necessary for sake of children's mental and physical health.
I know very few single mothers who are single by choice.
I became a single mother when my husband LEFT - physically moved out -- to a whole 'nother state -- without any notice, or without any forwarding address. He just went through an "I can't cope" stage and disappeared. There, he continued to roam around the country racking up huge financial bills (which, as his spouse, I was responsibile for by law, even though he was no where around) until I had to finally file for divorce to protect myself from financial litigation that was no fault of my own (other than being stupid in my pick of a husband). I paid off his bills. I raised my kids. In 13 years of being single again, I have never got one dime of child support.
You know, you call yourself a conservative Christian, and I call myself a conservative Christian, but I sure wouldn't want someone with your lack of empathy in my church and in my circle of friends. You make Christianity look bad.
quote:Belle, I was talking about their family as in single mother's parents not her children
When I became a single parent, I actually was earning more than my own mother. My father is dead. Many single parents have parents who are as poor, or poorer, than they are. So your idealistic view in this fails again.
Thankfully, I DID have a support structure in a very caring and supportive church, which made me believe in myself and in God's love, enough to get to where we are today.
I know I'm belaboring the fact that OSC-fan hasn't brought facts to the table. In some ways it feels mean to be doing it, but she has to understand that at a certain point facts are required in order to back up seemingly spurious claims. It is an integrity issue, and right now I don't see much from her.
AJ
[ February 27, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by farmerdave (Member # 4423) on :
My apologies luthe I havnt the time to hunt the stats so ive a poor arguement. But it stems from the idea of the rich getting richer poor getting poorer. I guess im just not capitalist enough to want much more than I have and to realise what I have is far far more than my fair share.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Let me see if I follow this correctly. 1) the "rich" are hogging a disproportionate amount of these resources (in this case money) 2) because of 1 they are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
To be able to hog something there has to be a limited amount of it. Wealth is not limited.
I guess I am not totally convinced that the gap between the rich and the poor really matters. I am fairly certain that your average poor person is richer today your average poor person 20 years ago.
Although we are getting pretty far from the topic of this thread.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But there are a lot of things that don't show up before you marry someone...in fact, there have been cases where women have married men who seemed perfectly nice (absolutely NONE of the usual warning signs) who ended up being horribly abusive or trying to murder them. You can't predict that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:In reality, the fact that some women choose to have a baby knowing they have no means to afford one is already considered neglect.
By whom? Do you mean "considered neglect" in the legal sense? Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC-fan, do you think that "neglect" equals ignorance? Belle tells the story of the pregnant teenager that her husband (a paramedic) helped at one point that had no idea that sex actually led to babies. This was child two or three. (correct me if I've got it wrong Belle)
I do think there is an awful lot of ignorance out there, that may lead to children. But un-intentional ignorance does not equate to neglect. And ignorance is far more rampant than we realize. For an off topic example that I'm still astounded by, yesterday a late 30s college educated co-worker asked me the definition of anti semitism. He genuinely didn't know. If that kind of ignorance can be found in highly educated people...
AJ
[ February 27, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So how long do you wait before you truly know the person? The answer is you can't. My great-great grandmother and great-greatgrandfather got married after knowing each other for less than two days.
On the other hand, I know of a several fathers who have abandoned their family after 10-15 years of being a model provider.
Why didn't it come out in the first five years? And how long of a waiting period do you reccommend?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Claudia, the law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married. I have seen it happening a number of times in civic courts.
What state and country please? It is also considered neglect if a father doesn't pay child support.
AJ
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
OSC-Fan, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that not everybody in the world lives with the perfect foresight that you do. There are also some people who change and grow with time and new experiences, something else I suppose you must not do.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
OSC-fan, by your logic, all of the civil cases you present are caused by the woman in the relationship? Am I understanding that right? You seem to be waivering in your arguements. First you blame the men, then the women. Truth is people change. It is hard enough to get to know a person in the first place. If you throw in the constantly changing dynamics of the human emotional system, it's near impossible to truly know anyone; especially a spouse that we automatically assume reads our mind.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well last time I checked, OSC fan, it takes TWO people to make a baby. I hold the mother and father equally responsible. However, many many young women (and men) have not been properly educated on the subject, even while extremely highly educated in academic issues.
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Oh, and in the words of my LT:
"Common sense isn't that common."
I hear that at least once a day.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
OSC-Fan, you are so far on the fringe that your views are making Farmgirl and I look liberal.
I can't believe the utterly callous disregard you have for people like Farmgirl, like my mother, like my aunt, like so many people I know. People whose husbands just...leave. And it works the other way, I'm good friends with two men whose wives left them with the kids. They both have full custody and things are going well.
But the reality is that most of the time women are the ones with the primary child rearing duty. The reality is that even when child support can be collected most single moms are in much worse financial shape after the divorce than the man. Unlike you, we don't generalize much around here when we're trying to make a political point. Anecdotes are useful critters, but they don't carry as much weight as cold hard facts.
quote:Finding: Divorce exerted greater economic consequences on women than men. Three months after divorce, 45.2 percent of custodial mothers not receiving child support were living below the poverty line, as were 38.0 percent of those receiving child support; noncustodial fathers, in contrast, exhibited poverty rates of 9.5 percent before paying child support and 10.5 percent after making those payments. Judi Bartfeld Demography 2000
To say every divorced woman had a choice, and chose to be divorced is a bit insulting. Women get left, abandoned, abused. I detest the divorce rate in this country, and I wish we could do something about it, but I don't blame people like Farmgirl for it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
OSC-fan, I am happy to be educated. As a mandated reporter of suspected abuse and neglect, I've never even heard that "the law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married."
Do you have any further information to back this up? I can find no reference to this at either the Department of Child and Family Services website, or through the site for the ABA Family Law Attorney's Network.
That sounds very, very odd.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've heard it put even shorter as "Common sense isn't."
OSC-fan I'm trying extremely hard not to lose my temper with you.
So, in the case of an unexpected pregnancy, who should pay for the abortion? The woman or the man since they caused the pregnancy?
By your own arguments, aborting the fetus appears to be what is far better for the community, than the woman actually keeping the child and having it become a drain on society as one of its dregs. There are so many adoptable children out there right now that all elgible parents should adopting the ones that are already out there after all.
AJ
(note, I'm not endorsing the above statement in that it is what I believe, I'm simply trying to find some logic in OSC-Fan's previous statments)
[ February 27, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: OSC-Fan, you are so far on the fringe that your views are making Farmgirl and I look liberal.
Belle Farmgirl
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: OSC-Fan, you are so far on the fringe that your views are making Farmgirl and I look liberal
Belle! You just made my day!!
(and here I was staying out of this thread to keep from losing my temper).
Farmgirl
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Do you realize what you are suggesting OSC-Fan?
1) mandatory removal of children from parents based soley on income.
2) A woman must stay in an abusive relationship with her husband as long as he doesn't abuse the children.
3) Great counselling comes from a book by a radio talk show hostess who has a doctorate in gym.
4) Sex is the cause of all economic problems.
5) Stealing $10,000,000 will get you sent to prison for 20 years, but believing the lies of a smooth talking man can wind you up in a prison of a marriage for life.
You claim not to be rich. I've discovered that nobody claims to be monetarilly rich themselves. Well off maybe, but Rich is always that other guy with the bigger car or the bigger house. Even Ken Lay's wife complained "Why are they hounding us. We are poor. We are down to only 3 homes and a few million."
Your family is there to help when the world turns cold. Great. There are people that do not have that luxury.
Your church is there to help when the world turnd cold. Great. There are people, even in this country, who do not have that option. They have never had someone show them how the church is good, just church fanatics yelling at them for beign sinners and hopeless and living sinners lives. They have been judged by a lot of good church folk, who did not invite them in to be saved, or to help, but only to condem as sinners.
Now for the economic reactionaries who calmly say, hey, charity is all that is needed--that does not explain the lines at the shelters and clinics and the shortages at the food kitchens. Your taxes are not going to feed the poor because people think thats a noble deed. It is, but its also saving you tons of money in the long run. In your perfect capitalist world, when the charity food runs out, where do you think the hungry will go? They will raid your warehouses and your kitchen.
Others, seeing no way out of their life of misery will make great cheap prostitutes and cheap thugs for your money to buy.
The cost of your guards and your police, or the street cleaning crews to clean up the streets from their weather killed corpses, may not add up to be more expensive than what you are paying now in taxes, but the diseases thier lives of squalor will breed will spread, even to your ivory towers, and will cost much more.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Belle, your doin your old man proud.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wonder what Robespeierre would say to OSC-fan, because she's not idealogically consistent entirely on her capitalism either. I think he'd find the holes quicker than I can though.
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
.....must..fight...genetic liberal curse....
Argh! I can't help it!
quote:straighten up and get married.
For now, I'm just going to pretend I didn't see that. Maybe, if I go away and then come back in a few hours, it will have magically disappeared.
Hope springs eternal.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: I already said that those whose situation is beyond their control need help, the others just have to accept the consequences of their choices, or straighten up and get married.
Wow, I'm at a loss here. I'll try to work through it.
So, I agree with the whole 'if the situation is beyond their control they need help' concept. But, I wouldn't be a good person if I didn't agree. The second part is baffeling to me. In most cases, as was already pointed out, the consequences are poverty and despair. Is that a good choice? Not in my book. Those that don't go into poverty are better off for having the "man" in the relationship leave.
quote: straighten up and get married.
There are such big holes in this arguement that I won't even think about adding water to it, I'll let it sink on it's own.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Dan Raven, sometimes people have problem with the truth and I can see it in this forum.
*throws up hands in disgust*
This is an INSULT to all of Hatrack. The reason why we are all here is because we WANT truth. We may disagree and argue passionately at points on what that truth is, but we are all trying to find it.
OSC-fan your chosen handle is a travesty. Especially to those of us who know and like OSC even if we disagree with him.
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I think AJ is holding back.
**runs for his flack-vest and helmet**
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How did you see through me so easily, Scott? AJ
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OSC-Fan, are you AJ's grandmother?
Please enlighten us. What truth are we missing?
Is it the truth that, well, gee, if everybody where as perfect as you then nobody would be suffering. That it has taken hard work and dedication and faith to get you where you are today, and anyone who has not reached that point must either be pitied or they deserve the pain they must endure.
And of course, anyone who is better off than you must certainly be saintly to have deserved it.
That the only reason one couldn't depend on one's family is because they were unworthy of their family.
That the truth you offer to show us must be taken on faith for there has been no proof offered other than your personal experiences, which, while interesting, are limited, as any single persons must be.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: OSC-Fan, are you AJ's grandmother?
I literally burst out laughing at that one Dan. I should have logged in as Banna_Oj to give you tribute.
A fabulous question that I would have asked if I had thought of it. AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC-fan: If you are truly considering adopting. Please don't. It's for the good of society.
AJ
[ February 27, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
quote:And somewhere, along the way, they raised a couple of pretty good kids. No arrests for either my sis or I, both have had fulfilling careers, Sis has a college degree, and we're fairly well adjusted and happily married.
Sopwith married his sister! Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ok, first a What???
quote: The law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married. I have seen it happening a number of times in civic courts.
In 5 years of a law degree, I have never seen this happen. I would be honestly interested if you have cases to back this up.
And secondly at Belle and Farmgirl's new liberal status. Plus the genetic roots comment. Belle, you just made my day. [To echo Farmgirl ]
I may not agree with you all the time, but you sure are one cool lady.
[ February 28, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
OSC-fan is right-- people need to take more responsibility for their actions.
AND . . .
One of the actions that I choose to take responsability for is my baptism as a Mormon.
Alma, a Book of Mormon prophet, who had lived a life of sin, but became converted had this to say about baptism and the covenants that Mormons enter into when baptised:
quote: Mosiah 18:8 ...and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life. . . .
As a Mormon, I take this to mean that unless I am willing to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that need it, I am not going to be redeemed. As a baptised Mormon, I have the obligation to bear the burden of those I come into contact with.
Realistically, I've come to interpret this as meaning that when I can give aid, whatever it may be, I give it. Money, time, talent, whatever.
For me, it is not so much the responsability of the single moms that concerns me-- it is my own. Where does my responsability lie?
Interestingly enough, my family and I read about this very thing last night:
quote: St. Matthew 5:42
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
I have never seen anying in the scriptures that calls for a mandated, consistent refusal of aid to those that ask for it. Either spiritually, or monetarily.
It is good to teach responsability, I think.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's both... both the individual and the society. But I'm looking at society here. The writer of this book is correct, society would benefit from elimanating trickle down, paying workers a living wage, lessening the economic burden on the poor and many other things. My question is how can this be done? Besides, a lot of the time a person is not poor because they want to be poor or because they didn't work enough. That is a myth.
[ February 28, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thank you, Scott R - that was good to read.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, syn. . . since you asked. . .
Society-wide, I don't really know what can be done to help single moms. I don't like the idea of more government intervention-- though I believe that may be all that can be legislated.
What is REALLY needed is prevention and individual kindness.
And now, I show my social conservative roots-- because if you really want young people to be as free as possible from sexual difficulties, you MUST stress the importance of self-discipline, self-respect, self-education, and sexual abstinence.
These things can't be taught by pamphlet, or from the pulpit, or out of a text book. They have to be values that are socially enforced, because most relationships are not intellectual-- they're social. And you have to come at them from the same vein.
That's prevention.
As for individual kindness-- . But we glorify sarcasm and cynicism and giggle at sincerity. We are becoming a society of anti-heroes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
PAGE 3!!!!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Also, what can be done for single folks like me who want pure independence but have to settle for not so good jobs?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why do you have to settle?
What does being single have to do with finding a good job?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OSC-Fan, that assumes that the family has those values to begin with.
Mine did and I thank God each day for it.
I have friends who's families did not have those values. One family, claiming itself truly Christian, valued fear and conformity and obeidiance. There son was headed down the road to drugs and destruction. Luckilly my wife and other caring people, and the US Army helped relieve him of the problems his family literally beat into him.
I have friends who's families cared little for them, but only thier position in the world and the status a good child will give them.
I have a step-mother-in-law who believes in giving her family everything, as long as her husbands previous family, my wife and her sibblings, get nothing.
Family is a wonderful concept, perfect in ideal, but usually far from perfect in practice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Family is a wonderful concept, perfect in ideal, but usually far from perfect in practice.
Then why put children in situations where the odds are even further stacked against them?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: Are you more likely to have a liberal gay couple to adopt a child than an old fashioned, religious one?
One quick question OSC-fan: Do you think that a Lesbian or Gay couple should not be alowed to raise children?
I too am a member of the LDS church. But, I also have a strong sense of trust when it comes to other people. Having this trust, I believe that anyone can be qualified to raise a child. Weither I believe in their sexual orrientation or not, they can still be good parents.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What alternatives do we have?
Certainly Single Mothers are not the best solution to raising children. However, the alternatives, Abortion, or Forced Adoption seem much worse.
And many single mothers do much better than bad parents.
Now if you are saying, "Don't get pregnant in the first place." and "Don't have sex in the first place." I won't argue.
But people do have sex. Young women listen to the lies of thier men. Birth Control is not as effective as women are led to believe.
Divorces happen.
Men die. Women die.
Single parent families occur.
We can either blame the single parent or we can help them. Laying blame is good for only one thing, giving you an excuse to not deal with the problem.
Synth started this thread to look for solutions.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC-fan you have yet to substantiate any of your allegations on the previous pages with facts. You haven't acknowledged a medical doctor and a lawyer saying they have never ever heard of the reporting of "abuse" for an unwed mother with two different fathers of her children.
Until you either acknowledge that you were mistaken, or substantiate your spurious claims with facts, I have absolutely no respect for you.
I think parents should be teaching values of honesty, integrity and truthfulness to their children. So far, you have shown none of the above, so what kind of role model will you make for your children. You haven't shown ANY of the "old-fashioned" values you tout in your communication with this forum. You cause people like Farmgirl and Belle, who do practice what they preach on a daily basis to recoil in horror.
Therefore, by your own stated standards you are little more than an "unfit" parent yourself.
AJ
[ March 01, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Synthesia,
This may sound odd, but if I lost my job, I would find some place to move to live that has an extremely low cost of living. (Norman, Oklahoma comes to mind because I lived there once already.)
I was able to survive in Norman, Oklahoma, earning $800/month while I was in graduate school. $500 went to rent, $150 for utilities and $150 for food and everything else. I never starved and even went to see the occasional movie. I was actually living in an expensive place. You could rent cheaper places for $350/month. Then even on the minimum wage it is much easier to live at a better standard of living than in expensive states like California or Illiniois.
In a college town like Norman, OK there are also an abundance of lower income jobs readily available. Interestingly you will find people driving much nicer cars down in Oklahoma because their income to cost of living ratio is so much better than many other parts of the country. I would live in a place like that, until I got back on my feet, and then I would start exploring opportunites to branch out.
Norman, Oklahoma while not a thriving metropolis does have quite a few cultural opportunities available as well.
AJ
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, OSC_Fan, it starts with strong families. But how can we create strong families if they don't have good jobs, good working conditions? It goes both ways! Even the strongest and most ideal family can crack under the pressure. Example- A man works in the factory to support his wife and 3 kids. However, they annouce to him that his paid break is getting cut, he can't leave the line if he needs to go tot he bathroom, his health benefits will cost him a large precentage of his wages. Even if he is a nice, respectable good guy, he can and will crack under this stress. He will take it out on his kids and wife. He will be stressed out and surly and as he finds out he will get a dramatic decrease in salary because he's being downsized and has to work a job that pays 7 dollars an hour as opposed to the 14 dollars an hour he was getting he will become stressed out. His wife will have to take a second job so she'll have less time to spend with the kids. The kids won't have their parents at home as much and when they are at home they will argue about money for hours upon end. Sadly, things like this actually happens! Yes, people should be more responsible, however, we are in a culture that is the equivalent of baking a nice warm batch of cookies, putting them in a cookie jar with the lid off, putting a nice fresh jug of milk in the fridge and saying don't touch these cookies. Sex is everywhere in the media and it is utterly appealing and forbidden so of course everyone wants to do it! If sex was taught in a casual, it's not a bad thing, just do it responsibly sort of way, maybe we'd eliminate at least 1/4 of the problem, but there's still the matter of work, jobs and education. Yes, family is the cornerstone, but they need support! Child care, affordable and universal health care. Things like that. I'm not asking for a communist state or insisting that capitalism be elliminated and we just hand out checks to people for not doing anything. I believe we need to do away with corporate welfare, get rid of trickle down and create a better society that cares for individuals.
edit-how does homosexuality teach that promiscuous sex is ok?
[ March 01, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
It doesn't follow that all homosexual relationships involve promiscuous sex. Some of them might, but them again so do some heterosexual relationships.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
OSC-fan, answer the question at hand. Your response to me seemed to be political at best. I'm not into going through and reading every post you've written.
Second thing, you say that you have not been rude to AJ. I can show you multiple times that you have been. In fact your last response to her showed a sort of 'holier than thou' attitude.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is allowed to use religion as a weapon.
Thanks.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*hugs scott neb*
I think the misandry accusation set me off the most. To turn your own words on you OSC-fan, you don't don't know me at all and yet you accused me of misandry.
There are many, many LDS people on this board,for which I have the utmost respect, including katharina. OSC-fan has yet to live up to their standard, and is, in fact, creating a new low for so-called LDS behavior on this board.
In short, it is people like OSC-fan that give the LDS religion a bad name. If OSC-fan was actually the first LDS person I'd ever met, it would have become the last religion I'd ever consider.
AJ
correction: misandry instead of misogyny
[ March 01, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs Banna* I'm sorry, girl.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If sex was taught in a casual, it's not a bad thing, just do it responsibly sort of way, maybe we'd eliminate at least 1/4 of the problem, but there's still the matter of work, jobs and education.
That *is* the way I see it taught a lot in popular culture.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC-fan many HETEROSEXUALS participate in and enjoy anal sex with a consenting partner of the opposite sex. No where in the Bible, as far as I'm aware, (and I know my Bible pretty darn good) is anal sex ever prohibited.
(In both heterosexuality and homosexuality there are an abundance of opportunities for sexual pleasure other than anal sex, but even in heterosexuality it is not viewed as horribly abnormal or truly in the "fetish" range of sex acts.)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
anal sex between heterosexuals is not prohibited anywhere. Not at all in the sodom and gomorrah tale either.
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
**pulls out dictionary**
Misandry... misandry... hmmmm...
**sits tight, waiting for a valid point from OSC-fan**
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
OSC-fan, chapter and verse, please.
[ March 01, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: anal sex between heterosexuals is not prohibited anywhere.
My understanding was that the recently struck-down Texas law was not agains gay sex, but agains sodomy in any form.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yeah I know. I think I'm done feeding the troll. Syn I really liked your initial point in this thread. What do you think about moving to a lower cost of living area? I realize it might take some resources to move but not actually that many. I've moved on extremely low budgets before.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
OSC-fan, you're displaying a remarkable ignorance of what the actual sins of the Cities of the Plains WERE.
Seriously, I still have trouble believing that you're not deliberately joking; your devotion to your faith is exceeded only by your lack of understanding of it.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Ah, found it! It's newer than my dictionary
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I get that sense of disbelief (they can't be serious) in discussions on Hatrack sometimes.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Don't be so hard on me. I just didn't know the word off the top of my head. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, no, Sodomy is named after the city due to the assumption it happened in the city, not the other way around.
That assumption is not exactly born out by the text.
[ March 01, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
[ March 01, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And in one sense, Dr. Laura does have a degree in Gym -- physiology, actually.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dr. Laura has a degree in physiology, so referring to it as a "degree in gym" was merely a slight exaggeration.
And your argument is circular: it's called sodomy because of Sodom, so it's clear what they did there.
Again I ask you: chapter and verse, please. And if you can't do that, how about writings from a specific bible commentary?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Genesis 13:4-5, men wanting to "know" other men:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Jude 1:7, going after strange flesh: 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to bfornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the evengeance of eternal fire.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good, we agree (although are you sure it's not Genesis 19?) -- there is a biblical prohibition against homosexuality. I expect the second source is NT, since I am unfamiliar with it.
In any case, I disagree with many of OSC-fan's points, but MOSTLY with her lack of backing up what she says. Doing it for her doesn't solve the problem.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not talking about personal responsibility or Sodom and Gommarrah (Though some have stated that it was destroyed for inhospitibility and not for homosexuality, though it's irratating when they don't point out the part where Lot's daughters got him drunk and had his children!) I'm talking about what solid thing can be done to positively change things for workers! Even a lot of religious oranizations have gotten involved in trying to create a basic living wage so that the working poor doesn't have to rely on limited charitable resources....
And also, my rent is fairly cheap... I've got to find a way to better my lot in life though...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*hugs Synesthesia*
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If you want to better your lot in life you're going to have to either get experience and/or education to allow you to move into higher paying jobs. That's they way people have been doing it for a long time, now.
As for single moms that are suddenly in dire financial straits with small children to care for - I think we need quality, subsidized childcare. None of them are going to perform their jobs well if they're terrified of the place they had to leave their children, because it was all they could afford. On-site daycares are wonderful, so you can visit the kids during lunch hours, I think more companies should look at this.
I think companies should be open to flex time, job share, telecommuting, etc. My company was, and when I thought I was only having one child, I was planning on staying home and telecommuting four days a week, coming in a half day one Fridays for departmental meetings and to drop off, pick up anything I needed that couldn't be emailed. It would have been great, until my boss resigned and the new one wasn't for it, and I found out I was expecting twins, so it made it a little less doable. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I agree with one thing OSC-Fan is saying.
People should take more responsibility for there lives.
Most people here on Hatrack due.
However, blaming the problems of the poor on the fact that they don't take responsiblity, is just an excuse not to deal with the problem.
Even buying copies of Dr. Laura's books, and passing them out to women in shelters would be an attempt, I believe misguided, to deal with the problem.
Buy saying, "You dear child made a mistake. Now live with it. I didn't make that mistake so I am better than you." is arrogant, and unconstructive.
To scream, "People need to take responsibility" may make you feel good. The question is, how do we get them to do it? What does that responsiblity include? How do we break the cycle of poverty and pregnancy. And I don't mean, how should they do it. I mean what can we do to make it happen.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree with both Dan and Belle!
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I agree with Dan and AJ!
Hugs all around.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: Banna, first of all I don't know if you are a Mormon, but I know I am one and I spend Sunday with my family therefore I couldn't be here in this forum to answer to your posts because I observe the Sabbath.
Okay, I just got back from lunch with my wife. I was talking to her about our little discussion here and this point that OSC-fan makes just keeps hitting me in the wrong places. I don't mean to derail the thread, but I think I need to address this.
Show me in any talk or scripture or any other medium in LDS doctrine that it says 'don't go on the internet on Sunday?' I find it very hard to understand how debating issues about your religion is a bad thing to do on the Sabbath. In fact this is among very few things that we can do to increase our testimonies.
I'm sorry, this really got to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be charitable to OSC-fan, I understood her statement to mean that she'd spent the whole day with her family and consequently hadn't been online at all.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Thanks for clarifying. If it's a personal decision than I won't argue.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Scottneb or Kat, do LDS refer to Sunday as the Sabbath?
I know rivka has a very specific definition of "Shabbos" and that isn't it. My understanding was that Sabbath was from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.
In the fundamentalist Christianity in which I was raised, we never called Sunday the sabbath. In fact calling it such was viewed as technically wrong. Going to church was under the New Testament "Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together" clause, not the "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" clause of the Old Testament
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know about LDS, but many Christian groups do (or at at least used to?) refer to Sunday as the Sabbath. One of the reasons I prefer to say Shabbos (when I will be understood) -- less ambiguity.
The main reason is laziness -- that's what I call it in my head.
(Oh, and to be precise, it's sundown Friday to full dark Saturday.)
[ March 01, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, THIS single mother had a lovely Sunday with her three kids -- after church we went out and played laser tag, then went bowling, then went to an all-you-can-eat buffet. (Yes, I know -- I dropped a lot of money yesterday. But my kids are almost grown and I want to enjoy each day I have with them yet). We had a great time.
And I wasn't on Hatrack at all! But not because of some Sabbath thing -- rather it was because it rained, which killed our phone line (we have problems with our phone in the country) and our internet connection at home is dial-up. So it was forced no-internet for the day. (Just as well)
Farmgirl
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
In response to AJ, the Sabbath is Sunday. The day of rest. God created the universe in six days and on the seventh he rested. Likewise we do the same.
The reasoning behind it is to spend a day out of the week reflecting on our beliefs and not on work or finances or anything that will take away from the 'closer to God' feeling.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's usually a talk on keeping the Sabbath day holy every General Conference, and someone will point out that the crowds at Wal-Mart on Sunday in 97% Mormon towns is proof that we all need to work on it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
OSC-fan I'm trying extremely hard not to lose my temper with you. ![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Belle ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Belle! You just made my day!!![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
. But we glorify sarcasm and cynicism and giggle at sincerity. We are becoming a society of anti-heroes.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)