It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just Watched "America's Poor Kids" On BBC 2

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by alldaylong
I had no idea that this degree of poverty and despair was so common in the US in the 21st Century. There appears to be very little help for those who have feel below the breadline.


Are you joking?

There are literally dozens of programs administered and funded by the state and federal government for poor children. To name just a few off the top of my head: section 8 subsidized housing, food stamps, supplemental food stamps for women/infants/children (WIC), Medicaid (free health care), S-CHIP (more free health care), low income subsidies for electricity/gas/phone, free school lunches, free daycare, free preschool, and free college educations for “disadvantaged” children.

Single parent households comprise the vast majority of poor children and its like the government does nearly everything in its power to subsidize them.

One child born to a single mother, OK, you made a poor choice but a common recurring theme with American child poverty is multiple children from multiple fathers (or sperm donors as I like to refer to them as) .. and the taxpayer just keeps on paying. Where’s the disincentive to stop?


Although some of what you state can be classified as correct, the mute point is that some of the people portrayed in the programme had to find help from The Salvation Army and not the state/local government.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Actually, they can depending on the honor of the statistician. Results for statistics can be easily biased by the selection of what constitutes the sample taken for the statistic. It's kind of like the old 9 out of 10 doctors agree type of ads--they can actually choose a sample where 9 out of 10 doctors will agree but it will not actually be statistically true. Prudence as to the source of those statistics has to be taken. The out of wedlock rates are best from census data but still can be skewed by political parties and whatnot. I used statistics in my response to you but I'll also the first person to say that statistics are not infallible. There's a great degree of variability depending on where one chooses to make a sample from.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


I know, it is so sad. I have always wanted to do something about it and I feel like I have to do something about it. This is unacceptable.



new topics
 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join