Thursday, September 13, 2007

What's love worth?

Nothing gets my blood boiling more than hearing a parent tell me how much shit they do for their child. Especially when it's shit they should be doing in the first place. "I am no dead beat, I take my son to get his hair cut every month". Or, "I take care of my kids, I pay my support on time" you want a fucking award or some shit? Isn't that what you are supposed to do for your own flesh and blood?

I mean, come on folks, let's keep it 100%. Without getting into too much detail, let's just say that I am in a unique position to hear this shit on a regular basis. The non-custodian parents making excuses for their absence, by inflating their involvement with their child's life. That, my friends, is the easiest way to get on my bad side. And I guarantee you that it will make for a very long fucking day for your ass if you happen to be at a certain address on 11th Street in Philadelphia.

And it's not just male non custodian parents, it's the females as well. (Yes, sadly, at least 10% of our non-custodian parents in Philly are female) " I had to carry his little ass for nine months, while his daddy was out fucking around." OK, five stars for Mommy. So after you fucked up your life, and Daddy had to step in and get custody of your child, don't you think you should contribute financially and emotionally to the child's welfare?

What got me thinking about all of this, was a couple of news items I saw this week: It seems that up in New York, Mayor Bloomberg has a pilot program to reward families for doing what they should have been doing in the first place. Complete two dental visits for the year, that's $100. Your child attends 95 percent of scheduled classes, that's $50 every two months. Your child passes a state exam, $300. Your child gets a library card, $50 in your pocket. Attend PTA meetings, $20. Huh? Look, I understand that we want to help families, and we are trying to do whatever it takes to motivate people into good parenting. But I am sorry, if it takes paying your ass to do the right thing with your child, well then you have a fucking problem.

Maybe, just maybe, that money should be used to prevent some families from having children in the first fucking place. Then there was the program right here in Philly at the start of the school year.(Which probably led to this idea) We made a big fucking deal about 10,000 (at least that was the goal) men walking their kids to school on opening day. Why? Why should this even be cause for celebration? Something that should be happening every fucking day. "Oh field, easy for you to say, you don't have any kids, you don't know how hard it is to raise kids these days." Yeah, you are right, that's why I don't have any. "But field, my baby mamma just uses our child as a tool to start shit with me and my new girl. I would rather just pay my support through the courts and not have to deal with the drama. " That's bullshit! Why don't you spend less time with your new girlfriend and more with your kid? Take some of those ends you were going to spend on her, and go out and buy your kid some shit; like a library card for instance.

I can't believe some of the ways we try to socially engineer shit. Why couldn't Mayor Bloomberg put that money aside for college tuition for children who could not afford to go to college? That would have been putting that money to good use. Not the shit they are doing now.
Can you imagine? Getting paid for shit you should be doing? Well I am up now, I am going to take a shower, that's $25. I am going to eat breakfast, that's $50. I am going to get ready and go to work, that's $100.......give me a fucking break!


Anonymous said...

Working in the child welfare system, I am willing to see almost anything tried at least once. How is ripping children from poor black families and paying middle class families to take care of them any different from placing the money with the poor families in the first place? And instead of just giving money and having them chose what to do or not do with it, direct the money so that it will certainly benefit the children? It is sad that people have to be paid to do the right thing, but that seems to be the main thing that motivates Americans to do anything.

People hurt people for a few extra bucks, might as well use money to encourage people to do some good.

Regarding using the money for scholarships, there was this one article about the rich guy who offered to pay for the college education of some inner city kids but he never ended up doing it. Why? because they never finished high school and if they did, it was not to the level that they could get into college. The point is, that it is much better to invest in children with these early things or else they will not get to the point where they can take advantage of college. Perhaps paying parents to attend PTA meetings might get them to actually like it, recognize that they have a voice and can make some change.

David D. Charles said...

Well it's 3:30, and I'm up too. I should have been in the bed so that I can wake up in the morning and be productive at work, make some money and keep a roof over our heads. So I guess I'm starting today off at something like a -$150! lol

My knee jerk reaction to this story was to think that Bloomberg had bumped his head. But the more I thought about it, I can appreciate the positive effects of an initiative like this. It's a shame that the state has to raise grown folks, tricking them into becoming productive members of society, but it is what it is.

I agree with anonymous, maybe the motivation will initially be monetary, but after realizing how rewarding they're actions are, these folks could begin to change their pattern of behavior. At least I'm sure that's the hope.

The issues that result in mental poverty cannot be legislated away, I understand. And for the most part I am against most attempts to do so, as they usually are futile,and an incredible waste of resources. But I'd be willing to explore this back door approach - putting the power (or money in this case) in the hands of those who must make the difference.

BTW, thanks for dropping by. Love your blog bro!

Anonymous said...

Soryy to disagree with you mr field,
but anything that encourages better parenting is a very good thing.

Anonymous said...

if it takes paying your ass to do the right thing with your child, well then you have a fucking problem.

Yes, they have the problem but the kids suffer.

I get pissed off at the idea of having to bribe people to do their parental responsibilities but I get over it. I just posted on this yesterday and in the end if it means helping the kids so they will grow up to be the exact opposite of their knucklehead parents then so be it.

I dont want to make the kids suffer any more than they have to because they were cursed to be born to fools.

My son's Open House was Tuesday evening. Do I even need to mention I could count the Black families on one hand with fingers left over?

They have an after school tutoring program (free to parents) some companies will give $50 gift cards if the kid shows up to all the sessions.

We shouldn't HAVE to do it but if it means helping the kids I'm for it. And I'm not sure I think they should be paid for all these things though. It doesn't need to be a money-making scheme.

field negro said...

Anon, what a man gotta do, and symphony; you all make fair points.I understand that at the end of the day, we should be more concerned about the kids. So even if we have to trick their parents into doing the right thing, we should at least try it.

Sorry, I happen to disagree with that school of thought. We might be helping those kids for a minute, but those parents will still have those bad habits which made them that way in the first place. Their trifling ass behavior will still effect those kids down the road. They will still have to grow up in that environment, and a few quck fix dollars for a short period of their lives won't make it any easier for them.

I understand that we want to get to these kids while they are very young, but I want to go even further than that; I want to help them BEFORE they even get here. Now that might seem cold to some people, but educating folks about not having kids they are not ready to deal with in the first place, is still the best way to go.

BTW, "what a man gotta do", I love what you are doing with your family my brother, and I am truly feeling your blog. You represent the opposite of what I was just speaking of. I should be thanking you.


Anonymous said...

“[if] it takes paying your ass to do the right thing with your child, well then you have a fucking problem.”


Bloomberg’s “pay parents to do the right thing” policies recognize that so many parents and institutions in his city have problems that the city as a whole would benefit from incentivizing its inadequates to transform into adequates. Let’s hope that after formerly inadequate parents get paid for doing the right things a few times that they’ll figure out Bloomberg’s policies are a means for highbrow patriarchs to play them for ignorant, lowbrow fools. They are a means of shaming the inadequate people they would dish out chump-change to and embarrassing the inadequate institutions that created people who would need to be paid $20 here or $50 there in order to have good enough reasons to do the right things for their kids. Through these patriarchal policies, Bloomberg is merely playing daddy to a city of that suffers from too many inadequates.

Anonymous said...

Completely agree with not having kids in the first place. So what's the alternative to help the kids who are already here? Do we look at the kids and say "good luck"? Do we take the kids from the idiots?

I don't know. Knock the parents upside the head? Take money FROM them when their kids don't perform? When their kids get in trouble? Maybe.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Field--yet another good analysis, and even more reason for birth control and freedom of choice.

The Christian Progressive Liberal said...

Field, when I lived in Oakland, some female got the idea to advertise a $200 stipend for women (mostly Black women)to abort their babies if they were drug addicts or some shyt like that (I'd have to check the Oakland Tribune archives for the exact data).

All I remember is the outrage from those billboards going up in the poorest sections of Oakland - trade your kid for $200...

This is a generation of people who grew up being rewarded for shyt they're supposed to do. Old school like me; the rewards we got for doing our homework, cleaning our rooms, going to school, and generally obeying your parents?

The privilege of living under your parents' roof, their working to put food on the table, good clothes to wear to the public school you attended down the street, and basically raising your ass from childhood to adulthood, with lessons on responsibility thrown in for good measure.

We have the "What's In It for Me?" Generation. We live in a time of low expectations. NO, you're not supposed to get a damned reward for rearing your children - they didn't asked to be conceived, and you probably wasn't thinking about an 18-year responsibility when you got your groove on, but it happened, so be a damned adult and accept responsibility.

The people you're dealing with in the penal and judiciary systems are people who grew up with a warped sense of entitlement, and no one bothered to teach them that the world owes you nothing but a hard way to go, if you thought it did.

And we also need to quit blaming "The Man" when our kids don't do what they're supposed to do, especially if the parents did what they're supposed to do in giving them a good upbringing. If that's an overwhelming responsibiity, find someone you can place that child with, so he/she gets that opportunity to be brought up in a loving household and trained to be a responsible adult. It's what Black people used to do, until we started wanting to be so much like everyone else, that we eagerly abdicated our responsibility.

If I date a guy and he has children, the minute I hear him say "I take care of my kids" like I'm supposed to give him a damned cookie, I'm showing him the door, because he's already indicating that he didn't choose to shoulder his responsibilities as a father, but that the court system forced him to. A real man doesn't need to be ordered to take care of his children; it's automatic.

Same thing with sistas. Some of us can be way foul by getting pregnant when we don't have to, because we're trying to trap an unsuspecting brotha into commitment; then when brotha man demonstrates he can be committed; he just don't want to commit to you, you take it out on that child you had ("I carried his lil' ass for nine months, you owe me.."), and you release a bitter brother into society that runs into one of us righteous sistas who catches the brunt of the baggage he's carrying from the last relationship as described above.

We should never tolerate giving rewards for something that just should be done without any expectations, period, because the cycle of dysfunction will never stop.

Muze said...

yeah i hate when black men say that to me..."man i take care of my kids." it's like, okay, isn't that what you're supposed to do?? geesh.

paying people to do what they should be doing anyway is only perpetuating the idea that black parents aren't responsible enough to take care of their business on their own.

Anonymous said...

I know I'm gonna get some heat for this, but so be it.

I think that after the 3rd - no, make that 2nd - child there should be a nominal financial incentive to undergo a voluntary sterilization .

Again, I stress the word VOLUNTARY and conditions that suggest an individual will not create a stable environment for a child to thrive.

If you want a child, ADOPT one that's already here.

That said, big ups to the parents, grandparents, Aunties (like yours truly) and Uncles who ARE holding things down for these clowns.

Dirty Red said...

To me this is a prime example of how the government should stay the hell out of family matters. If you did'nt want the responsibility of kids, you shouldn't have spread your legs or pulled your dick out.

Keep speaking the truth Field!!

Anonymous said...

You know, I'm getting tired of this bullshit. As soon as you mentioned Bloomberg, I got pissed. He runs everything like a corporation, and the shit pisses me off. It's one thing if your employee is earning better profit for your company, and it's another if parents are getting paid for what they're supposed to be! That's insane! that's what's got most of the edusphere blogs pissed off: the fact that Bloomberg can look at a child as a means of economic gain is disturbing. Do kids in suburban areas get paid for scoring higher on their exams? No. So what the fuck is this administration thinking? And what's worse is that once these kids raise their grades BECAUSE of the pay, will these children then expect that kind of payment for doing as the administration tells them? :: rolls eyes::

Melissa said...

Parenting isn’t about “fairness”. As a parent, I know that what works for one kid doesn’t always work for the other. If kids in the suburbs don’t need to get paid for doing well in school, that’s probably because they have less shit to deal with. I think if the government is going to establish a system, they should let parents (from all areas) apply for these incentives.

What I’m also hearing (and what I also believe) is that we all need to take personal responsibility for our actions and stop being victims.

So the question becomes, how do you make people take responsibility? This is very difficult.

As a parent I struggle to figure out the best way to raise my kids. For me, two things seem to work: praise and consistency.

Praise is important. When my girls behave nicely and considerately, we praise them, we hug them. In doing so, we say “we value your good behavior.” In addition, we show we love them all the time. We listen to them when they speak. We show appreciation for their ideas (no matter how wacky). We value them.

Then, when they hit or shove or grab, we isolate them and put them in time out -- consistently. It’s quite effective. Because we attend to them with our love, the smallest absence of our attention is quite powerful. It’s so simple -- people want to be loved.

Now, since I can’t go and “hug” and “praise” every poor, struggling person in the US when they behave in a socially positive way, (nor would they particularly care if I hugged them — I mean, who am I to them?), perhaps a financial token of a society’s appreciation makes sense. We are talking about grown people who are in the HABIT of feeling like victims. At their age, I don’t know that we’re going to change their minds. Their current mode of thinking is habitual, and for starters we need to consider how to break their socially irresponsible habits.

I see this everyday with my kids. They’re not born with a social consciousness. They steal each other’s toys. They hit. They manipulate. That kids are born these perfect little angels is not true. As a parent, it’s my job to teach these kids to be socially aware. I have to teach them that it’s not beneficial for a society when we hit or steal. You have more success in a society where you think about the people around you. Living in a society means giving to one another, not taking.

Part of that social giving, is showing poor ,undereducated people that we care and value them as well. Their parents didn’t teach them to contribute socially, so we have to. Telling people they are “bad” for maintaining a victim mentality doesn’t work because it makes people defensive and isolates them even further.

As a society, we have to show we care -- that we value their GOOD behavior.

Now, what will their kids think? What does this teach their children? Hopefully, it will instill in them the habit of doing well in school and taking care of their health — a habit that may carry over into their adult lives. The children will also see that their government cares about them — forget about what it says about their parents. It’s important that children see the potential for their government to take care of it’s people. If some parents choose to forgo these incentives, perhaps then the money could then go into a college fund.

I think providing incentives for good behavior makes a hell of a lot more sense than simply bailing people out of a tight spot.

I also don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to teach morality. It’s job is to promote social responsibility where people thrive and are healthy. Let churches and peers (and blogs such as yours) inspire people to take responsibility for their lives. But, it’s the mayor’s job to fix social problems without passing judgment. If providing monetary incentives fixes this problem, then perhaps he’s on the right track.

What makes children special — what makes them angels — is that they don’t judge. And I don’t believe that judging poor, uneducated people is helpful. Keep in mind, it takes a lot for me to say that because my mother and I come from an abusive, system-manipulating, white-trash family. I would love nothing more than anything to kick them in the arse and make them stop playing the victim game. But I CAN’T CHANGE THEM. That is the fact, jack. BUT, I can see how paying them some extra dough to keep their kids in school might actually work. It’s unpleasant, but true. Their kids are already going to grow up feeling unloved and underappreciated. But at least this way, if we can convince their parents to help keep the kids in school, they’ll be educated. The kids will see that SOMEONE cares about them.

Remember, this is NOT about the parents. It’s about the kids. Family matters are social matters and a government should take care of its people.

(FN — thanks for a wonderful post. I was all bored and uninspired this morning — now the juices are flowin’. Peace.)

The Christian Progressive Liberal said...


What you're advocating is separating real men and women from sperm donors and egg recepticles.

It takes heart, soul, commitment, love, and a sense of responsibility to be a parent.

Any fool can be either a sperm donor or egg recepticle; it does not make them parents. I'd advocate for voluntary sterilization if their history shows all of their children are in the foster care system because of shyt like drug abuse, physical abuse, or just flat out physical neglect.

Animals have a better sense of responsibility to their young than humans do.

Melissa, it sounds like the "time out" concept worked for you; Congratulations. But, I hope you don't mind if I say that "time out" for African-American kids like me really meant if you back talked to your mom or dad and you came out of the coma they knocked you in, LOL

Anonymous said...

Oh. My. God. This is my first visit to your blog, but you are on a similar rant to one that I posted earlier.

In my "slant," we're so hungry to find heroes that we reward things that should be normal behavior (like taking care of our children).

It's frustrating. I'm a parent and I don't expect any medals for my work. Parenting is one of the most thankless jobs on the planet, until you get the "Hi Mom" on TV later. It certainly isn't for the selfish or self-centered.

The fact that somebody would be a better parent if PAID to do so proves two things: (1) They clearly already had the skill if it magically appears when the benjamin s roll but (2) they were too selfish to be a parent in the first place.

I know many support the idea of payments because "the kids suffer." But that position begs the question, "Can you produce a life-long change in parenting skills by throwing a few c-notes at it?

Melissa said...

Yes, CPL, I'm lucky. I'm often amazed they respond so well to time outs. Sometimes it's a work out keeping 'em there, though! But my point being, praise and incentive can be a powerful motivator.

Melissa said...

Hawa -- no, we can't change life-long parenting skills by throwing c-notes at it. But I think that's the point. We can't expect to change these people. It's too late. They are who they are. What we need to do is make a better life for their kids in any way we can. But we need the parents help to do that. If it takes throwing a few c-notes at the parents to get them to help their kids, then why not do it? These kids are drowning and they need our help.

Anonymous said...

paying people to do what they should be doing anyway is only perpetuating the idea that black parents aren't responsible enough to take care of their business on their own.

Some of them aren't. More than we want to admit.

Mo said...

call me a pessimist, but i don't think that'll work...some ppl just don't care. children aren't stupid, they can tell if someone is there for them or something else. even if the money does get parents to do what they have to, it cant make them a better parent.

"But, I hope you don't mind if I say that "time out" for African-American kids like me really meant if you back talked to your mom or dad and you came out of the coma they knocked you in, LOL"

LOL cpl, thats some truth.

Woozie said...

Of course we shouldn't have to pay these people to step up as parents but the reality of the situation is they won't without it, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.

Hopefully tat pilot program of Bloomberg's is a step in the right direction for deadbeat parents, not a permanent solution.

Anonymous said...

With enormous regards, I believe that most of the attacking the Bloomberg program are fundamentally anti-black parent. I explain.

Love it or hate it--and notwitsthanding the best intentions of the best poor parents, financial considerations often determine the quality of parenting.

We can place our heads in the sand if we want and idealized life, but everyday a poor parent will engage in a cost-benefit calculation about parental obligations--too often with the sad result being less care for the child and more effort towards money or resting from the worries about money.

As a result of this cost-benefit analysis which involves some calculation of the time value of money, the poor parent will often emphasize short-term benefits (food, clothes) over perceived efforts producing more distant benefits.

Thus, it makes sense--to me--to make available a financial-base corrective. A financial incentive can be effective in moving the cost-benefit pendulum in a pro-benefit--anti-cost consideration direction. It also may allow a poor parent to plan for or emphasize long term benefits. (Just like extra money might free up funds for a life insurance policy.)

The NYC proposal, of course, cannot make loving parents out of uncaring ones. But it might free loving parents to love their children and to love them in the form of an insistence around education. (Just like absolutiely free medical insurance does some to encourage the loving parent to seek medical attention more regularly for their children.)

The Bloomberg propsosal rests on a similar consideration as a good job. We would expect that for many parents if they had a better job, that allowed to work fewer huors for much more pay, that they would be better parents.

If we believe this, than why not the Bloomberg proposal. Money, money. If we don't believe this, what are we suggesting about the reasons some black parents are thought not to require a commitment to education? Are we suggesting that are people-ren are just lazy, stupid, ignorant or otherwise character flawed? I won't accept this.

Woozie said...

Breaking news Field-they overturned Mychal Bell's (Jena 6) conviction.

Weez said...

I agree 100 percent, and I doubt if giving these boneheaded babymakers (they don't deserve to be called parents) money will do much more than buy more weaves, fingernails and Hennessy.

Anne Rettenberg LCSW said...

I came across a couple of misconceptions in these comments:

Do kids in the suburbs get paid when they do well on exams? Yes, they do, by their parents. Bloomberg isn't the first person to think of financial incentives for better behavior.

Kids are taken away from poor parents to be placed with middle class foster parents? that's news to me--where does that happen? Not in New York City. Here, kids are taken away from poor parents and placed with other poor parents, where they are often just as likely to be abused, especially because the lower income foster parents are usually just doing the foster parent thing for the money. Maybe if the kids were actually placed with middle class families, foster care wouldn't be the disaster it often is.

field negro said...

Thanks for that woozie, I saw that earlier about Mychal Bell. It's about time! This should not have been an issue in the first place.

But I digress. raven,as usual, you make some interesting points. But sorry, I am not buying into the idea that more resources will make you love your child more. I agree that more money and resources will give you acess to certain things, but come on, caring about your child's well being shouldn't cost a thing. Throwing money at this problem won't help. We need to attack this problem from the source.

Jose made some good points. He is a teacher, and I think he is in New York. You saw how he felt about Mr. Bloomberg and his plan.

"They are a means of shaming the inadequate people they would dish out chump-change to and embarrassing the inadequate institutions that created people who would need to be paid $20 here or $50 there in order to have good enough reasons to do the right things for their kids. Through these patriarchal policies, Bloomberg is merely playing daddy to a city of that suffers from too many inadequates."

e.c.hopkins, my sentiments exactly.

Nelson said...

While this idea may even work through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis, there are other things to consider.

First, the level of government control. The government is telling you what is best for your child. If the government gives you $50 for a dental appointment, you'll be more likely to make that appointment than the allergist appointment they need. As field said, it's social engineering.

Then there's the issue of reliance and dependency. What about when budget cuts need to happen? Parents gets used to the money, and when it dries up, they stop doing these activities.

Then there's the issue of malice. The NYC government has conducted drug experiments on minority children without their parents knowing. Here's one example:

So there's already a track record of malice. What if they start giving incentives for things like cancer causing immunizations, etc?

This is a bad plan.

Anonymous said...


It is a common misconception that most foster parents do it for the money. Often states require that they have jobs, a certain income, have a home with many rooms for all the children. They are rarely on welfare unless it is social security or retirement benefits. Most of the foster homes if not all in at least California are economically better off than the parent's homes. Check out the application requirements. Some directly say it and others don't, but most require that you have a certain income and certain home requirements.

All the foster homes I lived in were in black families that owned their homes and had their own cars. It was a vast difference from were I was living in a bedroom and my parents in the living room.

Bob said...

I remember telling my dad "I should be paid for going to school." His eyes damn near bugged out of his head he got so angry.

Hugh O'Donnell said...

Right on target, Field. It won't stick. Take away the incentives and then what?

You've got a street-level perspective being an officer of the court, and my experience has been that attorneys have a pretty good idea of what makes people tick.

Anonymous said...

Who of us is not money determined? We probably should all work--just for the exercise, mental stimulation and as contribution to the community pot. But most of us are do it for money.

How then do we look down our noses at the poorest among us when they are animated by money--even when they are animated to a good thing--notwithstanding the motivation of the incentive provider.

Most of us are social engineered by money. The poorer people are in America, the more determined their lives are by state action.

I like the NYC plan also because it admits its intentions. This is good for many reasons. Most important to me is that it will make explicit to blacks the source of their animation. This, I would hope, would cause us to stop mercilessly blaming ourselves for every misstep and motivate us to secure an ability to truly self-determine.

Brown Love said...

As a high school principal of an inner city high school in Memphis, TN., that services children in the poorest zip code of the state, I can understand the challenge of getting parents to participate in their child's education.

I do believe, however, that the challenges faced by parents in poverty can not and should not be compared to people who don't have to be as concerned with issues of 'survival'.

In theory, I really agree with your premise that parents do not deserve to get paid for doing what they are supposed to do for their child. Personally, I think parents should be fined when they don't make a real effort to participate in their child's education. Something as simple as making sure your child has his/her supplies or actually shows up to school should be directly linked to any funds parents are receiving - especially funds from the government (working people).

However, in practice, if we are not going to hold parents accountable (and we do not) for their own child's education, and then turn around and take the jobs of educators in schools (who, by the way, are taking care of their children properly) when other folks' kids don't come to school, and when other folks' kids don't pass state mandated test (due in large part to poor parenting skills to the extent where children don't get proper nurturing in their formative years and come to school ill prepared) - something has to be done!

If it takes paying parents, I say pay them, until we get the "balls" or the "ovaries (Hillary)" to start holding parents accountable for ALLOWING their children to stay out of school, or ALLOWING their children to cuss teachers out, or ALLOWING their children to misbehave, not do homework, and not pay attention in school.

I do believe teachers and administrators should be held accountable, in part, for making sure students receive the best education. 'In part' says that we need to share the responsibility with parents.

When I was discussing this with a colleague of mine, his comment was "We already pay them for having babies (welfare), we might as well pay them for taking care of them as long as it will benefit the child and the schools. The schools will then at least have a fighting chance of making the unrealistic benchmarks set by NCLB". He said, "The ones who were going to take care of their children, will continue to do so, but the ones who were not - are killing our AYP (annual yearly progress).

It's a two-edged sword.

Anne Rettenberg LCSW said...

anonymous, re

"Often states require that they have jobs, a certain income, have a home with many rooms for all the children. They are rarely on welfare unless it is social security or retirement benefits."

I'm glad that is the case in some places. I can tell you it is not the case in NYC.

MartiniCocoa said...

I'm split...
I can't stand baby incubators and semen disseminators who think it's everyone else's job to raise their child (or children).

And yet
why should children suffer more due to the horrible luck of the draw of having lazy morons for parents?

So yeah, I see Bloomberg's point and rationale.

I hope he sees mine when I start sending him invoices for showering every day, doing my laundry, cleaning my apartment, taking my vitamins and etc.

Big smile.

Anonymous said...

The foster care discussion prompted me to develop a list of circumstances in which financial incentives are offered to encourage positive behavior. Here are a few,

1. Tax deductions for charitable contributions.

2. Tax deduction of mortgage interest.

3. Foster care stipend.

4. Medical credit for obesity treatment.

5. For me, reimbursement of health club membership dues by HMO.

6. Allstate premium reduction for going without an accident.


Anyway, in my opinion, my state foster care system discourages the participation of the typical middle class black families. The program requires the constant supervision that only a STUCK-at-home person could provide.
Also, the estimates contemplated by the foster care stipend incentivizes only the very poor.

For a middle class person, the stipend wouldn't reflect a fraction of the minimum cost necessary to maintain a child in a middle class household. Forget even a trip to family reunion or visit to an amusement park, the cost of basic clothing for a child schooled in some working class neighborhoods would exceed the foster care stipend for food, shelter, clothing and other expenses. And this does not consider the cost of the necessary daycar--well beyond what one might spend on her own child. The daycare provided must be foster care approved--and employed for times when a parent might leave her kid without or to other's care.

Sybil Amber said...

I feel with you! There is a Beatles song about it, which is called She´s Leaving Home. The song is about parents, who mourne, they would have bought everything money could buy. - I usually hear "The children have everything", my question on this is always "What do you mean by everything?". I remember parents on Childrens´ Human Rights, at least. Yes, to raise children means to create a new focus in life, I think, namely the children, not one´s own house, car or fashion ... I think the most precious moments in watching growing up children and youth are the one´s spent with the youngsters. Children need time and assistance and relief to emotionally develop. I think, socio-economic factors come after emotional growth, learning and acquiring knowledge.