Discussion: Obama's Response To Child Poverty Isn't Just Feeble—It's Inefficient, Too

Discussion for article #232911

Obama is asking for about as much as our political system will sustain. Given the level of racism and hatred of the other we have in our society a monthly cash payment is a bridge too far.

What we need are higher wages and better jobs for young people. What you will hear from folks my age is," you think what you are describing is new? We had our children early in our careers too. We worked hard and counted our pennies. We didn’t make much money, but we didn’t feel poor. We are proud of how we worked so hard to make sure our kids didn’t go without. It didn’t hurt our kids that we couldn’t afford the Lexus until after they moved away. "

1 Like

There is a market solution for this: Legalize the selling of children. Why should our rich people who are infertile or who shun stretch marks have to go abroad to buy kids and have families? Taxing the rich to give to the poor to raise the kids is far less efficient than just putting the kids in the rich peoples’ homes. Low birthrate European countries will also be a promising market. Someday we may even sell children to the Chinese!

1 Like

Yes, Obama is asking for half-hearted and inefficient tax credits instead of better responses - and those still can’t get passed by Congress. Williams fails to mention that in addition to supporting allowances, the Conservative parties of Britain and Canada also support their countries’ national health systems, while our Republican party opposes the health plan that they themselves came up with.

When we have sane, rational people in the majority in Congress, maybe we can talk about the best response to poverty. Unfortunately, right now the majority has the attitude that people in poverty are poor because they deserve it.


But these “allowances” are way more potent: They’re a monthly check governments send to citizens raising young children.

I always cringe when I see these proposals. If enacted, they make for another costly layer of government which in this case is unnecessary. Let the people keep their money and allow them to pay for child care before taxes, so that they don’t have to wait for tax refunds once a year.

1 Like

Yep, it could all be taken care of right on the W-4 form. I did it that way anyways but at some risk.
This would truly be a fair tax based on reality rather than the wealthy scheming to cheat the system even more.

1 Like

Obama, having learned by implementing Obamacare, just wants to get the ball rolling. Of course the Republicans will howl and claim that the world will end, again, just like with Obamacare, but after the rollout, the beauty in the plan takes shape. The Repubs may go with another repeal and replace campaign but only because they want credit for what we and we only initiate and achieve.

If the Prez can get the public to see that investing in our children/future pays back in so many good ways, then we have a basis to grow from. The Repubs fight progress and especially progress with a Democratic label, so what. They are just part of the challenge that must be factored in.

Who’s against healthcare and childcare? These are subjects that instantly set the Republicans reeling and on the wrong side. Smooth, so smooth.

1 Like

I wrote about a Child Security Program in a book I wrote about 3 years ago. It is like this program almost exactly - and patterned after the Social Security plans for the disabled and elderly. The infrastructure for such a plan already exists, it is merely a matter of implementing the necessary legislation. BUT, not one person in this country will ever force their leaders to do so because quite frankly, if it is not your kid, you have no interest in helping another child survive or thrive. It is sad that in this country we count our children as being of such little value that we will allow anti-abortion laws to be passed, contraception access to be denied, and then when a child is born, so quickly abandon it to its fate, which as this article points out is more likely to be poverty and deprivation than comfort and affluence.

If you are interested in the plan I proposed, search Amazon.com for “After the Tea Party is Over” by Devon J. Noll, MPA. The book spells out the plan along with a great many others for saving this nation from the insanity that now has it in a deadly choke hold in Congress. As long as we allow our leaders to throw our young children under the bus we as a nation have no future beyond servitude and war at the hands of the few who can afford child care (they need it since they so often ignore their own children leading those children into another generation of ignoring children) and adequate health care.

1 Like

No, apparently it is an idea for political commentators that haven’t yet cottoned to the difference between the reasonably sane conservative parties in places like Canada and the UK and the radical boarder-line fascist Randians running the conservative party currently in power in the US. Commentators who apparently feel the need to go after the president for not being effective enough in his efforts to help poor children, as opposed to going after the Republican congress that is actively trying to throw poor children under a bus.


Why is childhood poverty so common? Because so many of their parents are not getting jobs that provide enough income.

The CEO of Gallup, the polling group that recently showed a serious improvement in presidential popularity, made an interesting point. The percentage of adults with full time employment is at the lowest point they have ever measured. Gallup was founded during the Depression, so they know from unemployment over the long term. Based on that standard, unemployment is at 10%. Part-time counter work just doesn’t do much for the national economy, let alone buy stuff at Kids-R-Us.

Based on the country’s economic growth history, we should have gotten to this point three years ago. What happened to that laser-like focus he kept bringing up his first term? Don’t even hear it anymore.

You know what happened and that is why you never mention the Boener and McConnell house.
You can work overtime attempting to do what you are but you are transparent. You could point out the successes of President Obama just as easily, if not easier, but you play this silly game of, I’m not really saying anything-buuuuut.
Make your claims and stand behind them or be the weasel that you are. There isn’t enough good news to go around for an eternal pessimist like yourself.

Let’s see, Cash for Clunkers; The Stimulus that had no lasting effect on the economy except keeping a bunch of civil service people at their desks for an extra year; the Housing tax credit that was actually a loan and had to be repaid; the laser-like focus on jobs that has produced less than half the growth than a comparable period of the Reagan Administration, and has had almost no growth at all in the higher-paying sectors; policies that have resulted in the lowest percentage of people with full-time work in at least the last half-century?

Leaving a reasonably stable Iraq with no interactions at a daily level, and ignoring the briefings of a growing movement that resulted in ISIS? Calling them the “junior varsity” when his intelligence staff warned him for at least a year of the coming problems?

Having more elected Republican legislators and fewer Democratic legislators at all levels of government than any time in the last century? The low Dem turnout that is blamed for this result happened for a reason. Ever heard of the term apathy?

Reagan got what he wanted by being a good politician and allowing the other side to benefit as well. Obama clearly is not a politician, he’s an ideologue, and will happily drive the country over cliffs if he cannot get his way.

McConnell is not in the House. Harry Reid blocked every bill he could, then got the House blamed for not doing things. There were hundreds of bills sent up that he refused to consider.

The only thing the House could do was block funding, and in almost every case they didn’t do that. Didn’t have the guts to do it.

Your side has been bragging that the deficit has been cut in half. Yes, compared to Obama’s first few budgets. Compared to any other president’s it’s still sky high.

ISIS, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Mexican cartels, lowest fulltime workers in history…
WHAT good news are you talking about???

Originality, look it up bub.
You are a mocking bird at best and you failed this test as well.
So far you’ve praised Perry and Reagan and have not been able to find one single, solitary positive that President Obama has achieved. Gee, I wonder what that means?

If you can find and figure out what originality means and then attempt to use it, then go to work on platitudes. And just an FYI, platitudes don’t have a duck bill.

You can’t see the forest for the trees. No wait, you won’t see it.
You’re inconvincible and so blindly partisan that your avatar should come with a handicapped placard.
It is not my job to school you and you are only out to argue and most likely do this for a living. You have so much work to do on yourself before you will ever be able to debate politics honestly that I don’t foresee anything rational coming out of you until the end of Hillary’s 2nd term and somewhere possibly in the middle of Castro’s.

Confucius say, blindness come from within. Confucius right.

1 Like

Oh, screw justice, even academics’ justice, and certainly “market solutions” (which, when it comes to kids, usually has the word “labor” in there somewhere); let’s go OLD SCHOOL on this momma:

  1. All his fault - before Obama = no child poverty, amiright?
  2. Impeach … now, before it’s too late! This is a problem that needs a BIDEN solution … okay, not: this is a problem that needs a BOEHNER solution - right, I’m not sure such a thing even exists; a McCONNELL solu- … too stoopid even to imagine, right?; how ‘bout a RYAN solution, straight ouitta the granny starver’s bag o’ nothing?
  3. Thanks, Obama!

I love the Internet and its constant flow of readily-available and obvious solutions to what may SEEM like intractable problems, but which are in fact easily overcome by blaming whatever guy we pretend we ‘put in charge’ of gettin’ stuff done, regardless of who we never even bothered voting for in Congress.