Posted on Feb 26, 2021
With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty
332
4
2
2
2
0
The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.
President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.
If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.
The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, of Utah, has pitched his own, smaller version of a child allowance.
More than 10 million of the nation's children lived below the federal poverty line in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And the pandemic has made life even harder for those already vulnerable families.
Over the past year, job losses have been especially concentrated among single mothers. And with so many school cafeterias still closed and unable to feed kids experiencing food insecurity, researchers are seeing alarming levels of child hunger.
President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.
If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.
The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, of Utah, has pitched his own, smaller version of a child allowance.
More than 10 million of the nation's children lived below the federal poverty line in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And the pandemic has made life even harder for those already vulnerable families.
Over the past year, job losses have been especially concentrated among single mothers. And with so many school cafeterias still closed and unable to feed kids experiencing food insecurity, researchers are seeing alarming levels of child hunger.
With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty
Posted from npr.org
Poverty
Children
Congress
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
1
1
0
Do not like.
This is a bad idea from either end of the political spectrum.
Putting my liberal hat on (and boy does this thing hurt... it just does not fit right) one of the biggest complaints I hear from those who do not like welfare (usually conservatives) is that women are (essentially) "paid for popping out babies." While there is a small amount of truth in that statement, it is largely pejorative hyperbole. This bill, if passed would give a very real face to that thought. It will make the assholes who actively deride welfare recipients RIGHT, and give them more fuel. We absolutely need to help struggling families, but making a move that LITERALLY pays you for having more kids is probably not the way to approach it, and provides WAY too much ammunition to anti-welfare zealots. The second- and third-order effects will be too costly down the road. And the many of the young women (and some young men) going into the welfare office WILL feel the force of conservative derision. They WILL have to endure threats and harassment, more so than they do now. And they do not deserve that. Let's find a way to get help to these families without providing easy ammo to conservatives.
Taking off the ill-fitting liberal hat, from the conservative point of view, (aside from the money for babies concept already noted), this bill has the effect of forcing me to subsidize someone else's poor decisions. I understand that not every baby is planned. But many MANY babies are the resultt of FAILING to plan (i.e. either use birth control - properly, and every time - or don't have sex). When we provide benefits to families based on how many children they choose to have, we send the message that we reward irresponsible decision making. And the more irresponsible you are, the more we will reward you. I live within my means. When I was a young E1, I made DAMNED sure I wasn't having no kiddies. Wrapped it up EVERY time (and to be honest, there weren't a lot of times) even when she was past menopause AND on the pill (long story for another time). I simply couldn't afford one. When I was a young SGT and got married, the marriage cam with a kid (hers from a prior marriage). I could afford one kid, but not two, so I made DAMNED sure we didn't have another one. A couple years later, after a couple TIS pay raises, and when I was pretty sure I would be looking at SSG soon, we went ahead and had our own kid. I made conscious decisions about how many children I could afford. I chose to prevent unwanted pregnancies that I could not afford to support. I did the right thing. Now, I am being asked to pay even MORE in taxes (or to create an even bigger deficit which is already out of control) to pay for those who CHOOSE not to be responsible. (Again, I understand that SOME pregnancies happen, despite preventive measures, but they are the VERY rare exception). Having a baby, for the most part, is a choice. And I should not be responsible for YOUR choices.
Either way, this is a bad bill. Whether it is looked at as a reward for poor life decisions, or as a poorly planned program which gives anti-welfare zealots MAJOR ammunition, it is a bad plan.
This is a bad idea from either end of the political spectrum.
Putting my liberal hat on (and boy does this thing hurt... it just does not fit right) one of the biggest complaints I hear from those who do not like welfare (usually conservatives) is that women are (essentially) "paid for popping out babies." While there is a small amount of truth in that statement, it is largely pejorative hyperbole. This bill, if passed would give a very real face to that thought. It will make the assholes who actively deride welfare recipients RIGHT, and give them more fuel. We absolutely need to help struggling families, but making a move that LITERALLY pays you for having more kids is probably not the way to approach it, and provides WAY too much ammunition to anti-welfare zealots. The second- and third-order effects will be too costly down the road. And the many of the young women (and some young men) going into the welfare office WILL feel the force of conservative derision. They WILL have to endure threats and harassment, more so than they do now. And they do not deserve that. Let's find a way to get help to these families without providing easy ammo to conservatives.
Taking off the ill-fitting liberal hat, from the conservative point of view, (aside from the money for babies concept already noted), this bill has the effect of forcing me to subsidize someone else's poor decisions. I understand that not every baby is planned. But many MANY babies are the resultt of FAILING to plan (i.e. either use birth control - properly, and every time - or don't have sex). When we provide benefits to families based on how many children they choose to have, we send the message that we reward irresponsible decision making. And the more irresponsible you are, the more we will reward you. I live within my means. When I was a young E1, I made DAMNED sure I wasn't having no kiddies. Wrapped it up EVERY time (and to be honest, there weren't a lot of times) even when she was past menopause AND on the pill (long story for another time). I simply couldn't afford one. When I was a young SGT and got married, the marriage cam with a kid (hers from a prior marriage). I could afford one kid, but not two, so I made DAMNED sure we didn't have another one. A couple years later, after a couple TIS pay raises, and when I was pretty sure I would be looking at SSG soon, we went ahead and had our own kid. I made conscious decisions about how many children I could afford. I chose to prevent unwanted pregnancies that I could not afford to support. I did the right thing. Now, I am being asked to pay even MORE in taxes (or to create an even bigger deficit which is already out of control) to pay for those who CHOOSE not to be responsible. (Again, I understand that SOME pregnancies happen, despite preventive measures, but they are the VERY rare exception). Having a baby, for the most part, is a choice. And I should not be responsible for YOUR choices.
Either way, this is a bad bill. Whether it is looked at as a reward for poor life decisions, or as a poorly planned program which gives anti-welfare zealots MAJOR ammunition, it is a bad plan.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google