One in 10 Kansas households go hungry

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-21 10:48am

Personal belieifs. There are enough people around, religious or not, who dont go for that.

Tough shit. There's an option available that, despite outdated religious dogma, is not harmful, and if you don't take advantage of it when you need to you're responsible for the kid's suffering.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-01-21 02:01pm

First, I'm wondering about some of you arguing for a 'No Kids if You're Poor' situation. Are you taxpayers, family men, or still in school?

It's easy to be on the outside of a situation and argue for solutions. It's far harder when you're in the situation.

It's true, my brother and sister-in-law shouldn't have had a second baby. But when she got pregnant, they never even considered another option. Why? Because they see the child as a gift from heaven (even if he's more devil than angel most times). While Marriage is a contract between two loving adults, it always has and still does entail having and raising children. It's hardwired by evolution, two people raise stonger, better babies.
The probelm is evolution was going off a hunter-gatherer situation, not a Janitor and a Waitress trying to earn cash.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-21 02:10pm

Joe wrote:Or Viewpoint 3: Prevention is better than cure, and society should take steps to encourage parents not to have kids they can't afford to take care of.

Thank you, Dr. Pie-in-the-Sky Solutions.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-01-21 02:10pm

Oh.. TPJ?

I've not lived with my parents in 14 years.

Out of that $8.50/hr, I'm paying for a $300 car payment, $50/month insurance for the car, $15/month parking fee for the car, $225 rent (SirNitram pays the other $200), about $100 for food, and then the assorted bills. I'm also one of the lucky few in this state that has medical insurance, taken straight from my check each month, unlike my brother whose work doesn't offer it.

Now, how much do you make, and what do you spend it on?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-01-21 08:37pm

a Janitor and a Waitress trying to earn cash

Please don't take this as an insult, LadyTevar, but how close are you and Nitram to qualifying for welfare benefits?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-21 10:12pm

LadyTevar wrote:Oh.. TPJ?

Now, how much do you make, and what do you spend it on?

I've been unemployed for a long time. Temp contracts vary , my last was paying $17.50 / hr. Currently Im making $24. That means if I contribute 5% of my income to a retirement account I will take home $2800/month.

Mortgage (including property taxes) - $1760
HOA Fees- $267
Assorted Bills - $300

Right now, I have no health insurance, the car is paid for and I will not purchase another till Im making more. I went 12 months straight without buying any clothes. Had some freinds buy jeans for me when one of my pair got a hole in it.

Ive had to rent out my condo just to keep it. I get $800 for that. When I get a permanent job I will take over all bills for my fathers house as I am the cartaker now. At that point my assorted bills will probably go to $500.

Starting this year, Im a situation where I can expect to see some ability to save money.

Im 32 and didnt move out till I was 31 after which I promptly lost my job. What luck eh?

To make ends meet over the last 14 months of unemployement Ive done side work, babysit, clean friends back yards, etc. Its been tough.
Im lucky that Im in my 30's, had I been in my 40's such oppurtunities would have not presented themselves.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-01-22 05:21pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:
a Janitor and a Waitress trying to earn cash
Please don't take this as an insult, LadyTevar, but how close are you and Nitram to qualifying for welfare benefits?

No where near.

Why? I have a car. For some ungodly reason, if you have a car, it's considered an 'asset' and counts against you.
What do they expect me to do... sell it for food?!

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-01-22 05:27pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:Oh.. TPJ?

Now, how much do you make, and what do you spend it on?
I've been unemployed for a long time. Temp contracts vary , my last was paying $17.50 / hr. Currently Im making $24. That means if I contribute 5% of my income to a retirement account I will take home $2800/month.

Mortgage (including property taxes) - $1760
HOA Fees- $267
Assorted Bills - $300

Right now, I have no health insurance, the car is paid for and I will not purchase another till Im making more. I went 12 months straight without buying any clothes. Had some freinds buy jeans for me when one of my pair got a hole in it.

Ive had to rent out my condo just to keep it. I get $800 for that. When I get a permanent job I will take over all bills for my fathers house as I am the cartaker now. At that point my assorted bills will probably go to $500.

Starting this year, Im a situation where I can expect to see some ability to save money.

Im 32 and didnt move out till I was 31 after which I promptly lost my job. What luck eh?

To make ends meet over the last 14 months of unemployement Ive done side work, babysit, clean friends back yards, etc. Its been tough.
Im lucky that Im in my 30's, had I been in my 40's such oppurtunities would have not presented themselves.

................
You know the *really* sad part, Jawa? That kind of money would make you very well off in WV.

And what kind of Temp jobs are you doing for $17-$24 an hour?! If you say 'office work' I'm going to shit a brick. That kind of work here nets you only $6-8.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-01-22 05:47pm

I can see the governments point, though, Lady.
A car is more than just a one time purchase, there is petrol, insurance, and maintenence. The logic, (which I don't agree with) is that you are spending this money on a "luxury." I don't know how the public transportation is where you live, but in California, USA, you must have a car, or access to one, (carpooling) to have a job not within walking/bicycling distance.
"Sell the car, and use the procedes and redirected funds to support yourself" is the government's line.

The principal is, that unless you live like a monk, and still can't feed yourself, you don't "need" help, you want a higher standard of living than your income can provide. If you spend one dime on entertainment, you are a leach on the public monies. You must be starving lean, and wearing rags to be poor.

I don't agree with that point either, but see why it is touted by those in office. Everyone 2 or 3 income brackets above you can feel smug, and everyone below you is a paid for vote.
I await the day that having an internet connection is considered a "luxery," and proof of your "wasting" money you could be spending on food. ("Use the free one in the public library you leeches!" will be the ralleying cry)
I have yet to be let down anticipating bad governmnent policies, based on catchy sound bytes.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-22 10:30pm

LadyTevar wrote: ................
You know the *really* sad part, Jawa? That kind of money would make you very well off in WV.

And what kind of Temp jobs are you doing for $17-$24 an hour?! If you say 'office work' I'm going to shit a brick. That kind of work here nets you only $6-8.

Hi LadyTevar,

My current job at $24 is technical support work. Its the most Ive made per hour since my layoff in 2002. At that time I was making $26.44 for a less demanding technical support job. So you can see wages are depressed here.

The 17/hour also was for technical support. I did one job for 12/hour and that was in a warehouse for a week or two.

Yes, I could live very well in 50K a year in WV. But not here. If I was back in my condo, I'd have 800 bucks a month after paying the "fixed" bills for food, entertainment, cell phone, clothes, etc. Not a very high margin.
Im lucky I dont need a new car right now.

If you are curious, office work here pays anywhere from $10-20 bucks an hour. You can get a job at Starbucks for $12.50 in the right locations, but where are you going to live? Its great if you are a college kid but not if you are on your own.

Rents have fallen a lot here. A luxury 2 bedroom apt might go for 1600/month. A regular place might be 1200.

But if you want to buy a home here, you cant get anything that is not in a ghetto for less than 400K. (thats single family homes)

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-22 10:34pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:
a Janitor and a Waitress trying to earn cash
Please don't take this as an insult, LadyTevar, but how close are you and Nitram to qualifying for welfare benefits?
No where near.

Why? I have a car. For some ungodly reason, if you have a car, it's considered an 'asset' and counts against you.
What do they expect me to do... sell it for food?!

I think this is such bull shit. You should be able to have a car under a certain money amount. Say 10-15K worth of car. A good car is essential to being independent and should not count against you.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-22 10:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Or Viewpoint 3: Prevention is better than cure, and society should take steps to encourage parents not to have kids they can't afford to take care of.
Thank you, Dr. Pie-in-the-Sky Solutions.

How is that a Pie-in-the-Sky Solution. Sure there's always going to be people falling through the cracks, but I don't see what is wrong with pushing for society and culture to discourage having children you can't afford to take care of because it is cruel.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 04:42pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Or Viewpoint 3: Prevention is better than cure, and society should take steps to encourage parents not to have kids they can't afford to take care of.
Thank you, Dr. Pie-in-the-Sky Solutions.
How is that a Pie-in-the-Sky Solution.

Fine, let me spell it out for you:

You can discourage poor people from having kids, but you cannot prevent it unless you enact ruthless totalitarian measures such as they use in China for population control. So, many of them will have kids regardless. The dilemma between not rewarding welfare bums for having kids and not callously disregarding the children is not solved.
Even if it worked, which it wouldn't, it would do absolutely nothing about the children who are already alive today. The dilemma between not rewarding welfare bums for having kids and not callously disregarding the children is not solved.
He does not even attempt to enumerate what kind of methods should be used to "encourage" them not to have kids. What are you supposed to do, exactly? Tax penalties? They're already on fucking welfare, remember? The dilemma between not rewarding welfare bums for having kids and not callously disregarding the children is not solved.

Sure there's always going to be people falling through the cracks, but I don't see what is wrong with pushing for society and culture to discourage having children you can't afford to take care of because it is cruel.

Right, let's pretend that there's no dilemma between cruelty to the children and social justice by opting for a "third solution" which won't work and for which he cannot even vaguely define how it would be implemented.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-01-23 05:47pm

Joe wrote:Or Viewpoint 3: Prevention is better than cure, and society should take steps to encourage parents not to have kids they can't afford to take care of.

By instilling an attitude of self-respect and empathy in them as youth.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-01-23 05:51pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:I can see the governments point, though, Lady.
A car is more than just a one time purchase, there is petrol, insurance, and maintenence. The logic, (which I don't agree with) is that you are spending this money on a "luxury." I don't know how the public transportation is where you live, but in California, USA, you must have a car, or access to one, (carpooling) to have a job not within walking/bicycling distance.

Amen, to that. It's a PITA without a car.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-23 08:51pm

Joe wrote:
Personal belieifs. There are enough people around, religious or not, who dont go for that.
Tough shit. There's an option available that, despite outdated religious dogma, is not harmful, and if you don't take advantage of it when you need to you're responsible for the kid's suffering.

Jesus..are your really that naive as to think 'tough shit' solves anything?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 08:57pm

I wasn't trying to solve anything with that comment. I was just stating that you're a fucking idiot if you get pregnant with a baby you can't afford and don't abort it. You're being cruel to the child and you're forcing everyone else to pick up the bill for your mistakes.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-23 09:28pm

Joe wrote:I wasn't trying to solve anything with that comment. I was just stating that you're a fucking idiot if you get pregnant with a baby you can't afford and don't abort it. You're being cruel to the child and you're forcing everyone else to pick up the bill for your mistakes.

Having children when you cannot afford them is stupid, but what can you do hmm? perhaps a law that states that people may not have children if they earn under a certain amount {adjust for cost of living in any given area}? and if they do..off to the abortion clinic?
True, someone does have to pick up the bill and given the subject, quite rightly too. You going to tell a child that he/she must go hungry?

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2004-01-23 10:03pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: Having children when you cannot afford them is stupid, but what can you do hmm? perhaps a law that states that people may not have children if they earn under a certain amount {adjust for cost of living in any given area}? and if they do..off to the abortion clinic?
True, someone does have to pick up the bill and given the subject, quite rightly too. You going to tell a child that he/she must go hungry?

So do you also propose another law that mandates the state to take away your kid as soon as you lose your job?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-23 10:12pm

Jawawithagun wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Having children when you cannot afford them is stupid, but what can you do hmm? perhaps a law that states that people may not have children if they earn under a certain amount {adjust for cost of living in any given area}? and if they do..off to the abortion clinic?
True, someone does have to pick up the bill and given the subject, quite rightly too. You going to tell a child that he/she must go hungry?
So do you also propose another law that mandates the state to take away your kid as soon as you lose your job?

I was being sarcastic.
But the point is that poverty is something that does exist and is something that should be done about it. Telling people not to have kids is pointless as it is unenforcable, and to allow children to go hungry is neglect when someone has the ability to do something about it.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2004-01-23 10:20pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote: So do you also propose another law that mandates the state to take away your kid as soon as you lose your job?
I was being sarcastic.
But the point is that poverty is something that does exist and is something that should be done about it. Telling people not to have kids is pointless as it is unenforcable, and to allow children to go hungry is neglect when someone has the ability to do something about it.

*shrugs* Sorry, your sarcasm was not noticed and you just were the last one here to express these sentiment so you were the one I replied to. About everyone seems to forget circumstances can change and while yesterday I was making enough money in the "New Economy" to afford kids now I don't anymore. And with that I can't undo having kids because I can't afford them anymore.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-24 12:00am

Jawawithagun wrote:*snip*About everyone seems to forget circumstances can change and while yesterday I was making enough money in the "New Economy" to afford kids now I don't anymore. And with that I can't undo having kids because I can't afford them anymore.

Exactly right.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-24 01:47am

Jawawithagun wrote:*shrugs* Sorry, your sarcasm was not noticed and you just were the last one here to express these sentiment so you were the one I replied to. About everyone seems to forget circumstances can change and while yesterday I was making enough money in the "New Economy" to afford kids now I don't anymore. And with that I can't undo having kids because I can't afford them anymore.

And that's why most people are in favor of reasonable aid, both to take care of your family and to get you trained for a job with real prospects. People like you aren't the problem, since I'm assuming you at least are trying to find a good job and have a decent education.

The problem is the idiots with no education or practical training (which can be as valuable as a college education) and that do nothing to change their circumstances. They're the big problem, especially since most of them have far more kids than they could ever possibly support. And worst of all, none of them has the drive to better their situation.

There's a huge difference between some one with prospects down on their luck and a permanent, parasitic, and improvished underclass.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-24 01:56am

Stormbringer wrote: The problem is the idiots with no education or practical training (which can be as valuable as a college education) and that do nothing to change their circumstances. They're the big problem, especially since most of them have far more kids than they could ever possibly support. And worst of all, none of them has the drive to better their situation.

There's a huge difference between some one with prospects down on their luck and a permanent, parasitic, and improvished underclass.

A bunch of girls at my high school (between ages 14-17) got pregnant and had kids my senior year. These were the dumb girls, the ones who just wanted to sit around and watch stupid TV shows and whose entire ambition in life was to find some rich guy to marry them so they could sit around and be pretty all day. A few of them I'm sure intentionally got pregnant so their boyfriends would stick around. The others were just stupid and convinced from the school abstinence-only programs that birth control doesn't work.

As for the boys...they just wanted a hole to stick it in and condoms don't feel good. That's it.

I will sound like a callous bastard when I say this, but I don't care. Those morons (the mothers and fathers both) should have been sterilized and their kids taken away so that they could not screw over the lives of anyone but themselves.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 01:59am

Stormbringer wrote:There's a huge difference between some one with prospects down on their luck and a permanent, parasitic, and improvished underclass.

Of course. But how does that statement translate into a workable solution? Fuck 'em? Their innocent kids are the ones who pay the price, and that's rather cruel. Pay 'em? That perpetuates the problem you decry so much. Tell 'em not to have kids? Yeah, right. I'm sure they'll obey. Force 'em not to have kids? Goodbye, human rights.