I believe that this is a totally separate problem...I can give you as many examples of more "well-to-do" parents with this mentality as I can give you of those in poverty. If you want to take away someone's kids, fine...don't do it because they are poor, but because of the above underlined part.

 

As far as the way of life part...once my school year has ended, I will start a Understanding Poverty thread, based on the book by Ruby Payne. The book doesn't say the "poverty as a way of life" is correct, it just allows you to look into that mindset.

I have no problem with that, I never said take them away because they are poor. I don't know how some of you are confused by that, I never said that.

I have no problem with that, I never said take them away because they are poor. I don't know how some of you are confused by that, I never said that.

Probably because of the thread title.

Call me simple, but can you tie this back into what it has to do with welfare? I think you're saying that we need to punish(?) those who don't "deserve" welfare. But I'm not sure how this all ties together.

 

I have to agree with TB&G. These are two unrelated problems. Money covers a variety of sins and one of them is bad parenting. I think the very nature of poverty leads to more neglect of children, but I think that is more often a matter of choices then bad parenting.

Generation to generation to generation. Get it yet?

Probably because of the thread title.

 

Or probably by the fact that someone posted it and my responses have been toward the whole discussion, not just what you have posted.

 

But thanks for all of the bolding.

Being poor does not automatically give anyone a free pass to parental, or social responsibility. We can't take a hands-off policy with any particular group, just because it makes us feel like we're doing the "right" thing. Treat everyone fairly, but equally.

Generation to generation to generation. Get it yet?

So, you're saying that by putting children in an orphanage, it will break the welfare cycle? :confused:

Although his solution is extreme, I still can't recall him ever saying anything about poverty being the deciding factor. The deciding factor, in this case, would be bad parenting.

 

The "you" in my post was metaphorical, not any one person. Maybe that is where a misunderstanding has occurred.

Although his solution is extreme, I still can't recall him ever saying anything about poverty being the deciding factor. The deciding factor, in this case, would be bad parenting.

It's really not extreme. The type of parents I'm speaking of, the extreme thing is to let them keep them. The child has no chance to get away from welfare, they become like their parents.

So, you're saying that by putting children in an orphanage, it will break the welfare cycle? :confused:

Of the ones I'm speaking of, YES!

 

Why so confused, an orphanage would actually give them a chance in life. It has for many people in the past. I went to school with some, had friends who's fathers were in one including mine. They all seemed to think it gave them a chance that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

Or probably by the fact that someone posted it and my responses have been toward the whole discussion, not just what you have posted.

 

But thanks for all of the bolding.

It was that or underline.

I am just wondering how you (we, them - again, metaphorical!) will differentiate the parents - the ones that can be poor and keep their kids vs. the ones that can't. What will the boundary be?

I am just wondering how you (we, them - again, metaphorical!) will differentiate the parents - the ones that can be poor and keep their kids vs. the ones that can't. What will the boundary be?

A good start would be school records. Another start for some of the older kids would be police records, in a lot of cases they're younger than you would think. Social workers would also be a "gage". I'm sure there are other ways and ideas to help define it. Heck, I'm sure I could think of more myself. I realize that it has to have checks and balances, but I still think in the long run it would be the best for these kids. It may sound mean or cold hearted, but it isn't, I really think they would be better off.

This is going to sound patronizing, RTS, but I think that you mean well. I just think that it is a dangerous line to tread.

This is going to sound patronizing, RTS, but I think that you mean well. I just think that it is a dangerous line to tread.

Why, we take kids from parents now and put them in foster homes. I think foster homes are not always the answer and not always in the best interest of the kid. They bounce from one to another and never get the help they need.

Of the ones I'm speaking of, YES!

 

Why so confused, an orphanage would actually give them a chance in life. It has for many people in the past. I went to school with some, had friends who's fathers were in one including mine. They all seemed to think it gave them a chance that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

I couldn't agree more! :ylsuper: