Interesting you would accuse me of not reading your entire post. A post where you repeatedly attributed a whole litany of things to me that I never posted anywhere that I supported. That hypocrisy thing rears it's ugly head again, doesn't it? It's funny, I have spent some time among the same type of drug and alcohol addict population in rural Appalachia. Severely conservative, rural Appalachia. What do you know it has the exactly the same problems. Clearly political leanings aren't causing this as you're so quick to assert.....hmm what do they all have in common? Significant poverty, perhaps? And lets talk about out of wedlock births, that sure seems highly correlated to poverty levels in a state as well, doesn't it? (Of course you'll notice the correlation between conservative states and two most purple colors as well but I don't think this is actually caused by conservative policies except to the extent those policies lead to higher poverty levels) And interestingly, the problem of children born to out of wedlock parents isn't growing as you assert, at least not in the past decade. It's interesting, your logic of "if you don't have a solution to this thing I've decided is the world's biggest "problem" than any crazy thing I suggest is better". As I clearly indicated, most of us don't think inner city moms having more than 2 kids is actually nearly as much of a problem as the idea that there are people running around advocating forced sterilization for them (but not themselves of course!). So we don't even buy into your premise, let alone your final solution. But if you do care about this, it turns out there are plenty of proven ideas out there. Here's a crazy one, stop trying to defund planned parenthood and fighting culture wars over sex ed in school and instead make sure free birth control is available everywhere all the time? And then there's the clear connection between poverty and high fertility that holds nearly everywhere on earth. Which brings us to the topic of this discussion, alleviate poverty and fertility goes down. The suggestion is the title of the thread! I am not spending my evening in an addiction center, and I sincerely thank you that you are. I do wonder, however, if you bring up to these folks in your talks that you believe they should be forcibly sterilized? If not, why not? It's hard to square someone who is going into the trenches to bring some humanity to folks who have very little left, who would then support forced sterilization on many of those same folks. I can't think of many things that strips the humanity from someone than that, can you imagine someone forcing that on you and those around you...for your own good of course?
Overnight, I'm trying very hard to keep my reply to you very short. The below commentary is the best I can do...inside joke between us. Unless I'm mistaken, most of the Universal Basic Income programs addresses two issues: Give money to people for each child although most UBI programs have a limit. The Solution to the messy problem of technology-induced unemployment (see my prior mentioning of robotics doing human tasks) Personally, growing up in a military family, serving myself, living in Kentucky / South Dakota / Illinois / Washington / South Korea / France / Canada... I've seen many different types of UBI programs although most were via a different name and every one of them is highly successful with some of them linked to other programs. For example, of the latter here in Canada...everybody gets a basic income for each child from birth until the child reaches the age of 18 along with the mother being given 15 weeks of paid maternity leave after the birth of her new child. I'll repeat something critical...everybody gets it and I think that's why it's not labeled social programs here in Canada. I'll now mention it's linked to your family household income. Thus, poor people get a lot and wealthy people get very little although I believe the ultra wealthy are not eligible. Politically, all parties in Canada support it although the names and costs have changed whenever there's a changeover in a new government. Most UBI programs come from a source of excess income that's been proven to be sustainable after many years. For example, Alaska gives a check to every person in their state via a UBI program from Oil profits...revenue the state generates from its mines, oil, and gas reserves — into the fund annually. The money is in turn invested by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation in domestic and global stock, bonds, private equity, and more, and interest earnings are then distributed to Alaska residents every September. The profits from Oil are in the billions and then it's invested...profits from investments are in the hundreds of millions and then it's shared with all residents of Alaska. Thus, in Alaska, the UBI is not based upon how many babies you have because everybody gets it. In contrast, like Canada...everybody gets it too but there are a few strings attached...you need to have a baby but there are other programs that do not involve having a baby. In Canada and many countries globally, most of these programs have some historical connection to WWII or connection to a country / area with a wealth of nonrenewable resources (e.g. Alaska and Canada). In the military, there are different names but the biggest or one of the biggest is the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) - Offsets the cost of housing when Soldiers live off base in a civilian community when on base or government housing is not available. Thus, it's not based on the number of babies that you have. Many years ago, I read somewhere that most UBI programs researched/studied...they did not encourage families to have more babies except for those designed to encourage fertility (increasing the size of families and to minimize poverty)...like the programs in Canada. Chicago's program seems to be designed for one purpose, to help lift families out of poverty. In contrast, as I mentioned above, there's another growing interest in UBI programs. It's a solution to the messy problem of technology-induced unemployment (see my prior mentioning of the rise in robotics doing human tasks). My point, Universal Basic Income or programs under the same umbrella are not always about fertility (babies). It's been used very successfully since WWII in many places for various other reasons. Most of the dislike for UBI is via stigma that it will increase your taxes in comparison to the belief that it will encourage people to have more babies. Studies show that UBI do not encourage people to have more babies unless they're intentionally designed to do that when there's a fertility problem in the population like Canada had during WWII and problem too in the United States. Fortunately, after WWII...Americans and Canadians know how to fuck. Leading to the rise of the suburbs. wrbtrader
There are too many points here for me to address at this hour on my end, because I be getting sleepy and would have a response to your response that would be even longer than your response! Oy! All I know is, there has to be fundamental reasons why Canada's UBI cannot be compared to USA UBI ideas. Alaska? That is an outlier state, both figuratively and literally. Alaska is not providing UBI...They are providing a stipend for living in the state. If I find the energy to respond to the rest, it will be on the weekend.
Yes, there are fundamental reasons why Canada's UBI is different than the USA UBI ideas. I intentionally did not go into it because it would have made my message post twice as long. Instead, I used a shorter version via the U.S. military in comparison without mentioning the Universal programs with the VA Hospital and a little military history there involving soldiers that came back from WWII. Soldiers that stayed on active duty and had families (spouse/children) to take care of, were given extra pay in comparison to another soldier that was single that stayed on active duty. wrbtrader
You keep missing the point I make no distinction between white or black. It's not about race, it's about behavior and continuing to incentivise irresponsible behavior, repeated irresponsible behavior. This must stop if we are to even make any progress in combating poverty, crime and child neglect. And no, I do not suggest the people I talk to in these meeting would be better off if they had fewer children, they already know that. No point in rubbing their noses in it. And while you, me, or anyone else may not want to think about that inconvenient truth, it is the cold hard fact and something must be done to prevent future generations from enduring this growing problem. The life that these kids are born into is the true horror, and to think some type of program that prevents it is abominable, but being just fine with abortion is the ultimate hypocrisy. It's what a truly humane society would do if we actually put quality of life above pushing political narratives.
It's funny you keep protesting that your ideas aren't based on race.....despite the fact I never brought up race at all! The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It's crazy that you would incorrectly accuse someone of not reading your post before responding, then proceed to respond without reading the post you're responding to! Are you even aware that you're doing that? You continue to mindlessly repeat this whole "it's all about behavior" argument despite the fact I have never disputed that and in fact not made any of the arguments that your brain has apparently decided I've made. Maybe go back and actually read what I wrote. I reject your premise, based on false information as I demonstrated, that multiple out of wedlock births are a growing problem that we must rely on draconian measures stripping people of their humanity to stop. I proposed some solutions, like making sure birth control and sex ed are freely available and, pointed out, again back to the topic of this thread, the fertility and income are pretty much universally inversely correlated so helping poverty with a program like UBI helps this problem and accomplishes the opposite of stripping the humanity from a whole group of people. These are apparently inconvenient things for you to talk about, so you keep bizarrely just keep protesting that you're not being racist while ignoring everything I actually wrote. If you want to keep arguing with the imaginary "liberal" in your head whose positions you've come up with and then imprinted on anyone who disagrees with you, there's no need to come into public forum like this to do so, you can do it at your kitchen table alone. If you want to actually have a discussion with another human, you'll have to respond to what that human actually says, not what your brain made up that they said.
The solutions you propose have been in place for years, decades, they don't work. They might work if birth control was mandated, but we can't do that now can we? The immediate cry would be abut violating civil rights. We can mandate a vaccine for a virus that has a 99% survival rate among the general population, but cannot imagine a mandate for birth control pills to people who can't support themselves let alone children, but that's another topic altogether. Throwing more money in their pockets is the lazy, quick fix, kick the can down the road solution and it hasn't worked, it won't work. It's how people who don't really want to think about these things deal with the problem. The bottom line is the population among the poor is exploding in all communities , white, black and Hispanic. What we've been doing obviously hasn't worked. What I'm proposing isn't stripping people of their humanity, it's putting a stop to children being born into poverty, ending up abused, neglected, cast into the streets. You want to see someone stripped of their humanity, go talk to the 12 year old being pimped for drugs and money. Go talk to the house full of small children scrapping among themselves for what's left in the cereal box and spoiled milk. Go talk the the frightened young boy who is now the trigger man for some gang and must do what he's commanded to do or face the consequences himself. All I hear is it's about the children, the children are the future. Well the future looks pretty fucking bleak for these kids and we're not doing much of anything to prevent it, other than all the old failed policies. I do however appreciate you engaging in a rather uncomfortable conversation. It's the only way we will find some common ground. Whatever solution we may find, it damn sure won't come form our glorious leaders. They are only interested in creating a very dependent voting block. If anyone is coming to save someone they damn sure won't be from D.C.
The state of Illinois has a diverse culture like any other state. Rural families encourage having a lot of babies whereas families in cities are discouraged from having a lot of babies. I saw the difference in perspective early in my childhood while living in Kentucky and visiting friends & relatives in rural communities versus others in cities in other states between Kentucky, South Dakota, and Illinois. Again between the United States, France, and Canada. I also learned to recognize racism (racists), ethnic cleansing, superior race ideology, and race purity...they all believe in a few fundamentals and one of them openly defends / advocates forced sterilization under the façade it's not about race. Keeping it simple, there has never and will never be any good out it for the global population. In addition, it has always led to other crimes & abuses against mankind. The world is a better place without these types of individuals that believe in the sterilization of people they feel superior while they have the inability to share the same views about their own kind doing exactly the same. Today, forced sterilization is not only illegal in America... it's a deceptive practice that's typically practiced on others when there's a language barrier. A manipulating trick used in Nazism...learned by Adolf Hitler from American literature when it was being popularized back in those days. As stated, it has always opened the door to other crimes & abuses against mankind. These people that believe in it and then defend it need to be weeded out of society before they're able to set any roots into society like the good old days that's rebranded today and openly discussed online but never in the education system for fear of being exposed (weeded out). wrbtrader
Its growing pattern and it's being protected by racists that believe their ideology (e.g. forced sterilization) is not racism under the illusion its intellectual conversation. Ironically, it's the same type of intellectual conversation they want to keep out of the education system because they fear being exposed when the roots, history, and results of such an ideology are exposed. Nazism rebranded They want it applied to "those people over there" but not to "us" whenever we do the same thing. wrbtrader