School Kids and Poverty

[Sonny Clark]

We're creating a very poor and dependent society, and it's not getting any better. Our schools are reporting a major of students are at or below the poverty line. This is a major shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

The growing poverty problem in America's schools ---- The growing poverty problem in America s schools - Jan. 29 2015

The share of schoolkids who qualify for free or reduced lunches crossed the 50% threshold in 2013, according to a recent Southern Education Foundation report. That compares to fewer than 32% back in 1989.

There are three main reasons behind the increase, said Steve Suitts, the report's author.

• Though the economy is recovering, it's not producing enough good-paying jobs to lift families into better financial situations.
• The growth in immigration is bringing more low-income children into the school system.
• Higher-income families are having fewer kids.

About 90% of America's children go to public school. Test scores clearly show that low-income students are far less proficient in math and reading than their better-off peers.
American children who go to schools with fewer than 10% of students eligible for subsidized lunch score close to the top in math tests given to 15-year-olds, just behind China, Singapore and Taiwan. But kids in schools with 25% to 50% of peers in subsidized lunch fall about 16 rungs to the lower third of developed countries.

Where did we go wrong? Why have we neglected one of the main keys to the future of America?

 

[Sonny Clark]

We're creating a very poor and dependent society, and it's not getting any better. Our schools are reporting a major of students are at or below the poverty line. This is a major shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

The growing poverty problem in America's schools ---- The growing poverty problem in America s schools - Jan. 29 2015

The share of schoolkids who qualify for free or reduced lunches crossed the 50% threshold in 2013, according to a recent Southern Education Foundation report. That compares to fewer than 32% back in 1989.

There are three main reasons behind the increase, said Steve Suitts, the report's author.

• Though the economy is recovering, it's not producing enough good-paying jobs to lift families into better financial situations.
• The growth in immigration is bringing more low-income children into the school system.
• Higher-income families are having fewer kids.

About 90% of America's children go to public school. Test scores clearly show that low-income students are far less proficient in math and reading than their better-off peers.
American children who go to schools with fewer than 10% of students eligible for subsidized lunch score close to the top in math tests given to 15-year-olds, just behind China, Singapore and Taiwan. But kids in schools with 25% to 50% of peers in subsidized lunch fall about 16 rungs to the lower third of developed countries.

Where did we go wrong? Why have we neglected one of the main keys to the future of America?

State Board of Education takes over Little Rock School District ---- State Board of Education takes over Little Rock School District Arkansas Blog Arkansas news politics opinion restaurants music movies and art



Gov. Scott Walker to propose 13 percent cut, more freedom for UW System ------ Gov. Scott Walker to propose 13 percent cut more freedom for UW System Wsj

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where did we go wrong?

where?? by becoming more liberal. As govt has become more liberal we have become poorer. China grasped this principle and switched to capitalism. Our liberals are too stupid to see it so the more liberalism fails the more they want more liberalism to fix the failure of liberalism.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Where did we go wrong?

where?? by becoming more liberal. As govt has become more liberal we have become poorer. China grasped this principle and switched to capitalism. Our liberals are too stupid to see it so the more liberalism fails the more they want more liberalism to fix the failure of liberalism.

Is that the root of child poverty?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where did we go wrong?

where?? by becoming more liberal. As govt has become more liberal we have become poorer. China grasped this principle and switched to capitalism. Our liberals are too stupid to see it so the more liberalism fails the more they want more liberalism to fix the failure of liberalism.

Is that the root of child poverty?

yes obviously!! China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% or the world's poverty!! Imagine how stupid liberals are not to know that?

 

[DGS49]

This (OP) is what happens when people accept the story line put out by the mainstream media, rather than engaging in a bit of logical thought to analyze the issues rationally and reasonably.

Middle-Class Values.

They have been defined variously and there is not universal agreement on everything, but one thing that is universally accepted among the true "middle class" is that YOU DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN UNLESS YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES TO NURTURE THEM PROPERLY. It is not a difficult concept.

When my wife and I got married, we wanted to have kids, but we deferred having them until we had paid off our school (and other) debts, bought a house, and KNEW how were going to provide for the care of the future kids while we were working. We even considered the possibility that a kid of ours might require special care of some kind that would prevent one of us from working. Then we had kids.

My 32-year-old son and his wife went through the same thought process, are living their lives accordingly, and have two beautiful daughters, both of which are nurtured neurotically-well.

There is nothing amazing or heroic about this. Anyone who is not an idiot will go through pretty much the same process. And the children who are brought into this world from this middle-class perspective will go to school with proper clothing, nutrition, intellectual background, and will have the support of their parents throughout.

When addressing the number of school kids who are poor or from broken homes or whatever, "WE" did not "allow this to happen." It is the result of millions of biological parents acting individually, who have FAILED to organize and live their lives in even the most basic rational way, assumine - one can only suppose - that some government agency or agencies would see to it that they did not fall into total destitution because of their irresponsible, self-destructive procreative decisions.

Not my problem, not my fault, shame on (most of) them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is the result of millions of biological parents acting individually,.

yes but what about first causes? The black family was remarkably intact until attacked directly by liberallism in the 1960's. Liberal feminism, welfare, divorce, and abortion took its toll on them and to a lesser extent all American families.

 

[SteadyMercury]

yes obviously!! China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% or the world's poverty!!

China started opening up economically in the late 70s, it is now 2015. There is no "just" or "instant" about it.

Imagine how stupid liberals are not to know that?

Irony.

 

[regent]

Has the world finally stumbled onto a more natural economic pattern? It seems more and more nations, end up with an economic mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism.
If we can now can decipher and prevent or cure the business cycles, the world may have a wee bit more stability. But of course there are the politicians.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It seems more and more nations, end up with an economic mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism.
.

too stupid!! China just switched to a rigorous form of capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty. Are you for poverty and just slow?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If we can now can decipher and prevent or cure the business cycles,

dear, the business cycle is caused by massive liberal interference with the economy!! With out 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford there would have been no housing crisis.

 

[SteadyMercury]

China just switched to a rigorous form of capitalism

Rigorous = large percentage of total industrial and business profit controlled by government?

Reforming China s State-Owned Enterprises The Diplomat

According to Xinhua, at the end of 2011, there were 144,700 state-owned enterprises with total assets of 85.4 trillion yuan, revenues of 39.25 trillion yuan, and profits of 2.6 trillion yuan (43 percent of China’s total industrial and business profit).

Most SOEs are controlled by local governments, though it is those in the care of the central government that receive the most attention. Of those companies, there are three categories: those controlled by the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Committee (SASAC), banking and finance organizations, and “media, publications, culture and entertainment companies,” administered by other agencies

Rigorous = government sponsored monopolies creating artificial market environment of competition?

Overall SOE profits are largely supported by just a few massive SOEs, such as PetroChina and China Mobile, according to China Economic Review, that are able to reap substantial profits by way of their “monopoly positions.”

This “monopoly position” of SOEs is one of their greatest advantages. State-owned enterprises are given government subsidies and have much easier access to credit than independent firms.

SOEs distort the Chinese economy in a number of important ways. First, as noted above, they guzzle much of the available credit, starving smaller enterprises, and their subsidies make it difficult for other companies to compete.

Rigorous capitalism = management based on communist party creds?

China s State-Owned Enterprises and Nonmarket Economics Center for American Progress

Top managers and board members are selected not by shareholders but through party mechanisms—even in joint ventures with foreign companies. Individuals in these positions typically also hold roles in government, the party, and on boards of related enterprises. The interpersonal linkages help coordinate noncommercial dealings between legally unrelated firms and are reinforced by party personnel systems that rotate people between such posts.

Rigorous capitalism = non-SOEs public companies also controlled by the communist party?

Because only noncontrolling minorities of shares are ever offered in China, it is not possible for the market to govern corporate control or price capital assets. Firm managers and boards of directors are appointed by party systems and thus are insulated from the possibility that investors could threaten management positions or state control of the firm.

 

[zeke]

"China lifted nearly 40 million people out of poverty last year, by its own measure, but more than 82 million rural Chinese still get by on less than $1 a day, a senior government official said.

“Poverty is still a salient problem in China,” Zheng Wenkai, a vice-minister at a government office responsible for poverty alleviation and development, said at a news briefing Tuesday, according to the state-run China Daily newspaper. About 200 million Chinese, or 15% of the country’s population, would be considered poor by international poverty measures, set at $1.25 a day, Mr. Zheng added.

China’s poor are often beset by inadequate infrastructure and a lack of access to education, health care and loans, and are vulnerable to natural disasters, Mr. Zheng said at the briefing, according to the Global Times tabloid."

too stupid!! China just switched to a rigorous form of capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty. Are you for poverty and just slow?

When will you be moving to China? 82 millions live on 1.00 dollar a day. 200 million live on 1.25 per day.,

"The average disposable income of urban Chinese households rose to around $3,000 per capita in 2010, according to an analysis of official government statistics by China Market Research Group. That means a typical family of three earns around $9,000 a year."

And do you really want to claim 9000 dollars a year is a HUGE capitalist success story.
But seeing as how a great deal of those increased earnings come from having good American jobs shipped to China by American manufactures. I call bullshit on your claim about how successful capitalism has been in China.

How fucking hard is it to offer dirt cheap labor to American manufactures who USED to have to pay a real middle class wage. And you think that represents "capitalism" eh. Fuck that.

 

[zeke]

So a Chinese middle class worker earns 3000. Hell lets give him a 25% raise and say they earn 4000.

And the job the Chinese person has used to be done by an American worker making, lets say, 32000 a year.

Now if you want to claim that slave wages paid out to Chinese workers is a capitalist success for the American manufacture who just saved 28000 dollars a year in pay roll, I guess you could call that a success.

But it sure wasn't a "success" for the American worker who lost his job now was it?

 

[zeke]

With out 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford there would have been no housing crisis.

Dear, what the fuck is up with you? Do you have a complete mental wipe out of everything that was taught to you the day before? That's the only explanation I could offer as to how you come up with the same stupid shit day in and day out. And that's even after someone has given you the correct information to learn from

But your ability to learn sucks. Which is why you are a Republican.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

With out 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford there would have been no housing crisis.

Dear, what the fuck is up with you? Do you have a complete mental wipe out of everything that was taught to you the day before? That's the only explanation I could offer as to how you come up with the same stupid shit day in and day out. And that's even after someone has given you the correct information to learn from

But your ability to learn sucks. Which is why you are a Republican.

Without 132 liberal programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford there would have been no housing crisis. For example, the housing bubble would have been 100% impossible without the Fed printing the money necessary to inflate the bubble.
Isn't thinking fun?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"China lifted nearly 40 million people out of poverty last year, by its own measure, but more than 82 million rural Chinese still get by on less than $1 a day, a senior government official said.

dear, of course there is still poverty in China and that's because there is no way to instantly replace communism with capitalism. Do you think there was a magic way?

See why we have to be 100% liberal will be slow.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When will you be moving to China? 82 millions live on 1.00 dollar a day. 200 million live on 1.25 per day.,
.

why would I move?? I live in a Republican country that has had capitalism for 400 years while China has had it for only 35 years during which time , by the way, it has eliminated 40% of the world's poverty. Thank God for Republicans who have prevented another 60 million from slowly starving to death in China under liberalism!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But it sure wasn't a "success" for the American worker who lost his job now was it?

dear capitalism is:

1) very fluid, dynamic, and progressive so all the folks who made whale oil lamps lost their jobs to cheaper better products and then found better jobs. Get it??

2) nevertheless, most in America who lost their jobs lost them thanks to liberal unions, taxes, and deficits and secondarily to the liberal attack on and destruction of the family and schools.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rigorous = large percentage of total industrial and business profit controlled by government?

Reforming China s State-Owned Enterprises The Diplomat

dear, in 1978 they switched to capitalism, i.e., they entered the world market to compete
on the basis of price and quality. The communist govt does not have even a tiny bit of control over the international market place.

And most importantly the people of China believe in capitalism more than Americans or Europeans.

And China may be more capitalist than America:
Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington of tooling its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukuyama in Monday's Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had little to teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."