CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:57 am
 


IMO,

Income disparity and poverty have a lot to do with family/parenting. No amount of money is going to force fathers & mothers to stay with their kids.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:00 am
 


Mandatory Minimums are stupid, but Black Market trade in Guns should be taken more seriously.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:01 am
 


And obversely, income disparity impacts parenting. When people work three jobs to try to make a half-assed living, they don't have much time or engergy left over for parenting. When people are just scraping by, they can't offer their kids the kinds of enriching activities better off parents can. When schooling in part depends on the wealth of the parents (schools keep asking for more and more direct contributions from parents) then poor kids don't get the same quality education that better off kids do. When kids come to school hungry, they certainly don't learn well, which is why we have all those breakfast programs. etc

But we certainly digress.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:35 am
 


Curtman Curtman:
I have no problem with a 25 year minimum sentence for trafficking illegal weapons. I just don't think it will do any good.


On the contrary, I think a 25 year sentence would do wonders - that gun selling crack dealer would be off the streets for 25 years. That's a lotta crack and a lotta guns he can't sell to people - be they youth or undercover cops.

I agree it wouldn't be a deterrent for some people, but it would definitely do some good.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:36 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Curtman Curtman:
I have no problem with a 25 year minimum sentence for trafficking illegal weapons. I just don't think it will do any good.


On the contrary, I think a 25 year sentence would do wonders - that gun selling crack dealer would be off the streets for 25 years. That's a lotta crack and a lotta guns he can't sell to people - be they youth or undercover cops.

I agree it wouldn't be a deterrent for some people, but it would definitely do some good.


Of course they don't have those kinds of sentences for guns in the US, but they do/did for crack - and lawmakers realized it didn't do any good at all.





PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:39 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Curtman Curtman:
Poverty causes crime.


What a pathetic and paternalistic 19th century view of the world that you have there. So all poor people are inclined to commit crimes just because of their economic status? And it's up to busybodies like yourself to take care of them by stealing other people's incomes and giving it to the poor to do what? Prevent crime by using the government to legalize theft? :roll:

If that was the case the USA would be the most peaceful nation in the world given that we've spent six trillion dollars on the poor over the past fifty years.

Take your communist ideas and shove them up your *** because they've been tried and they failed. Utterly.


Communist? Socialist. Take your capitalist failed ideas and shove them in your for profit prison system that got you fools to where you are now. Ahead of brutal dictatorships in the numbers of people imprisoned, and no further ahead in the battle against violent crime.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:13 am
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
IMO,

Income disparity and poverty have a lot to do with family/parenting.


So why do the children of poor, Asian immigrants whomp the snot out of domestic middle class kids both in education and in general behavior?

Because economics has nothing to do with it. Culture does.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:16 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
IMO,

Income disparity and poverty have a lot to do with family/parenting.


So why do the children of poor, Asian immigrants whomp the snot out of domestic middle class kids both in education and in general behavior?

Because economics has nothing to do with it. Culture does.



So you're not too keen on American culture?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:18 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
IMO,

Income disparity and poverty have a lot to do with family/parenting.


So why do the children of poor, Asian immigrants whomp the snot out of domestic middle class kids both in education and in general behavior?

Because economics has nothing to do with it. Culture does.


Precisely why I said it's a family/parenting issue. I never mentioned anything about economics.

How many of those poor Asian families are single parent households? I'm betting not many.

That's the problem we face here in North America. Single parent families. The lack of a father is especially damaging for a boy growing up regardless of his race or culture.





PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:31 am
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
IMO,

Income disparity and poverty have a lot to do with family/parenting.


So why do the children of poor, Asian immigrants whomp the snot out of domestic middle class kids both in education and in general behavior?

Because economics has nothing to do with it. Culture does.


Precisely why I said it's a family/parenting issue. I never mentioned anything about economics.

How many of those poor Asian families are single parent households? I'm betting not many.

That's the problem we face here in North America. Single parent families. The lack of a father is especially damaging for a boy growing up regardless of his race or culture.


When the economics of a single parent family dictates that the family is better off if the single parent stays home to look after the kids rather than fork out money for daycare AND give up child tax benefit.. It is an economic problem. A national daycare program would have helped a lot. But we lost that opportunity again.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:33 am
 


Let's say we eradicate this culture of poverty, only create winners. Who then will do all the shit jobs at shit pay we keep creating, while eliminating good middle class jobs?


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Profile
Posts: 841
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:35 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Curtman Curtman:
Poverty causes crime.


What a pathetic and paternalistic 19th century view of the world that you have there. So all poor people are inclined to commit crimes just because of their economic status? And it's up to busybodies like yourself to take care of them by stealing other people's incomes and giving it to the poor to do what? Prevent crime by using the government to legalize theft? :roll:

If that was the case the USA would be the most peaceful nation in the world given that we've spent six trillion dollars on the poor over the past fifty years.

Take your communist ideas and shove them up your *** because they've been tried and they failed. Utterly.



How much have the rich “stolen” based on your own definition through intentional tax loop holes, lower capital gains rates, off shore accounting, shell companies etc? If we’re throwing around numbers my guess would be ohhh, maybe 100 trillion [bonk] …. All of which winds up doing nothing, whereas if it wound up in the hands of wage earners it would go directly back into the economy and spur it.

That's not communism, that's fair taxation and fair wages for an honest day's labour. The same system that worked for 30 years under republican and democratic leadership after WWII.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:02 am
 


Curtman Curtman:

When the economics of a single parent family dictates that the family is better off if the single parent stays home to look after the kids rather than fork out money for daycare AND give up child tax benefit.. It is an economic problem. A national daycare program would have helped a lot. But we lost that opportunity again.


But the reason they're in that economic situation is due to a lack of a father/mother.

The lack of a parent typically always leads to a low-income, single parent family household.

IMO, throwing kids into institutional daycare will do nothing to help the situation. We already have a program here in Ontario where low income families get subsidized care, as low as $5 a day.

My wife has been a childcare worker for 15 years and now owns her own daycare.We've seen kids come and go who are on subsidy and frankly, it does little to help them be better young men/women.





PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:24 am
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Curtman Curtman:

When the economics of a single parent family dictates that the family is better off if the single parent stays home to look after the kids rather than fork out money for daycare AND give up child tax benefit.. It is an economic problem. A national daycare program would have helped a lot. But we lost that opportunity again.


But the reason they're in that economic situation is due to a lack of a father/mother.

The lack of a parent typically always leads to a low-income, single parent family household.

IMO, throwing kids into institutional daycare will do nothing to help the situation. We already have a program here in Ontario where low income families get subsidized care, as low as $5 a day.

My wife has been a childcare worker for 15 years and now owns her own daycare.We've seen kids come and go who are on subsidy and frankly, it does little to help them be better young men/women.


It does help. A child grows up with a parent who works hard and is to proud to let the system pay their way, or a child grows up with a parent who stays home and lives welfare cheque to welfare cheque.

I know which I prefer. I grew up in a single parent house. I was lucky, my grandparents bought a house on our street so I'd always have somewhere to go at lunch and after school. Not many families in our situation have that luxury.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:30 am
 


Curtman Curtman:

It does help. A child grows up with a parent who works hard and is to proud to let the system pay their way, or a child grows up with a parent who stays home and lives welfare cheque to welfare cheque.


In my experience, seeing mom or dad work hard doesn't replace an absent mother or father. It may help, but it's nothing close to having mom and dad with you.

Curtman Curtman:
I know which I prefer. I grew up in a single parent house. I was lucky, my grandparents bought a house on our street so I'd always have somewhere to go at lunch and after school. Not many families in our situation have that luxury.


Unless you've never experienced the system and how it works, it's hard to place judgement on it. You had a great experience with your grandparents close by, but many of these kids thrown into subsidized care are raised by strangers for the majority of their childhood.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.