Michael Moore says Money of the Rich isn't theirs

Remove all ads!

Don't mess with typoman, Rotku.

 

AND

LKD - all I can say is that no one thinks that children should stay with unfit parents, and if the parents actually are addicts and/or criminals and they get caught, their children will be taken away.

However, unless you are suggesting that it is a crime to be poor, the vast majority of people who are poor are NOT criminals. I don't know how else to tell you... well maybe I do - let's go to your next statement.

I wish you would have looked up some of those stats. There are millions of people in prison in the United States. The incarceration rate is 0.75%, which with a population of about 310 million works out to about 2.3 million people. I didn't spend hours looking up that information - it took me about 15 seconds in a google search, and it was the first freakin' topic. Another 15 second google search, and again the first freakin topic that showed up told me that the percentage of people living below the poverty line is 14.1%, or about 43.6 million people. So even if every single person in prison is from a poor background, and for every one in prison there's another 3 or 4 out there that are criminal or addicts who just haven't got caught yet, that still means the vast majority of poor people are neither criminals NOR addicts. That's beacuse there's about 19 times as many poor as there are people in prison.

So yes, kids can and are taken away from unfit parents, but to you, you're an unfit parent just because you're poor?

As Rotku pointed out I don't have any means of easily typing "á". The only way I can get one is to select a special character from a list, or copy and paste it in from someone else who uses it, and frankly, I don't feel inclined to do that every time I want to type "he who shall not be named", name. If it makes you feel better, I'll just call him Viktor - I feel like I know him well enough now that we're on a first name basis anyway.

I've seen such attitudes, but they are rare and not representative of most. And FYI, some people decide to have and keep the baby, even if they're poor, because they hope that they won't be in poverty their whole lives. I know more hard-working single mothers than I do ones that stay at home on welfare. Generally, the ones in my neighborhood on welfare are the ones with kids who aren't old enough to go to school, and we've already discussed the costs of daycare and why it makes more sense to stay at home with them. Most go to work when their kids are old enough to go to school.

It does exist, but I suggest you heed some of your own advice and let them try to move on from their mistakes. I don't see how taking their kids away from them is a step on that journey.

 

I have no problem with them actually moving on from their mistakes. Heck, a little short term help from society isn't out of order either, as long as the person realizes that they are not owed that help. I have a serious problem providing extra long term support for people who make such mistakes. I see nothing cruel or sexist in expecting people to pay for their own children.

Chandos, I don't really care who people sleep with. What they do in their own homes, backseats, or whatever is their business. What I do expect is for them is to take responsibility for their choices. I also expect them to not demand that I pay for their actions. That's not sexism. I made it very clear that men who bail should be tracked down and compelled to support their children. In other words, they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Women should also be held accountable for what they choose to do. It boggles my mind how people have no problem holding men accountable but then they turn around and let women off the hook completely. I understand that in times past men often got off the hook, and that's a disgrace, and perhaps it still needs to be addressed in some countries (not Western Democracies, mind you, I think they have pretty good systems for finding and dealing with fathers) but that in no way should be used as an excuse for women to do whatever the hell they want in a consequence free environment. I'd rather keep the tax dollars so that I can use the money for the benefit of my own children.

 

I guess I'll have to be satisfied with the little stuff - at least you aren't still claiming the vast majority of the poor are addicts or criminals.

 

It's fast if you use ctrl+c once on it, and then each time you need it, you press ctrl+v. Ctrl+v is practically same fast as typing any other letter. So It breaks down to this:
1) If you want to write down his name, then Orbán was mentioned already in the thread, which means you can ctrl+c/ctrl+v the character
2) If it wasn't mentioned, probably you won't mention him on your own. If you do after all, then you can look it up in an earlier thread, and then every further instance of his name can use this fresh (and local) copy of á.



Keep Orbán in your clipboard!

/End of off-topic./

 

I never meant that, and apologize for my poor expression if it sounded like I did. I'll try to clarify my position:

The vast majority of bad parents are addicts or criminals. That I truly believe (and I did mention that I have no problem with middle or upper class families losing their kids should they be either addicts or criminals.)

To go back to the original point of the topic, though, I'll admit that sometimes I make assumptions -- they are based on my personal experiences and the extreme frustration I feel at paying astronomical taxes and getting jack squat in return. That said, . . .

Moore's assumption that the money of the rich was somehow illicitly obtained is utter BS. Just because someone is financially successful doesn't give a raging douche like Moore the right to insinuate that they don't deserve the money they have or that they stole it from the saintly Poor. He needs to come up with some frigging evidence -- compelling evidence -- that a person has committed a crime or been unethical -- before painting with such a wide brush. As some noted, I can be a little harsh, and I admit that based on my personal experiences I paint with a wide brush from time to time, but I am decent enough to admit it. I doubt Moore ever could, because he is the most useless piece of whale excrement in the universe.

 

Here's a radical idea. Free early childhood care for those over the age of three. It's been proven time and time again how a good early childhood education can really lead to successes throughout a child's school life. Was looking at a study a couple of months back and they were still finding (statistically) significant differences in the "success" rate of those who had early childhood education and those who didn't when they were 16 years old (11 years after starting school). Making it free kills two birds with one stone - it gives these single mum's a chance to work (or even study!) and gives these kids a better shot at life.

 

As an educator, I agree with you. But some people who can would rather spend that time with their children at that age*. Many people don't want to turn their children over to the State until the child is a little older. Making it compulsory would be opposed by many on those grounds. Then you factor in the cost, and it becomes even more troublesome. We all know it's possible, but the money has to come from somewhere, and as Chandos said, it's not likely that in a place like the US they're gonna cut the defense budget to fund this.

*That free child care needs to be universal if it's publicly funded, otherwise it's just another program that discriminates against the middle class.

 

Yes, I'm Word savvy enough to know ctrl+c and ctrl+v. But it's all good. Me and Vik are tight. (I've decided I know him well enough that not only are first names acceptable, nicknames and diminutives are too!)

The thing I don't get with his statement is he seems to think that he's not among the flithy rich. He might not be CEO level rich, but he has to have an income greater than 99% of the population.

Good luck with that. As far as I'm aware, there is no such program in the US. You can write off up to $3000 annually in child care costs on your taxes, but as I said, even an average daycare will cost several times that annually.

 

actually the number of people would be far higher. 43.6 million households live below the poverty line, slanting those numbers even further in your favor.

 

As there are a bunch of topics on the same... topic, I thought I'd just try make one post in general. I just wanted to say that the baseline for this entire discussion (here and in general) continues its relentless creep to the right, making everybody see everybody else as more extreme. It looks as if the US is heading fullspeed into the next great depression and with politics becoming more adversarial with battle lines now being drawn, (unions etc) it's going to be virtually impossible to avoid as politicians refuse to compromise. Current events are eerily similar to the leadup to the great depression, ah but I'm drifting offtopic.