Three Things to Avoid Poverty?

Nutcase Presidential candidate and former PA Senator Rick Santorum has been saying this same thing in his stump speech, as if it were that simple. In today's economy I'm sure there are literally millions of people who have done those three things and are still struggling just to keep their heads above water. That's not to say doing those things isn't preferable but there are plenty of exceptions on both sides. Actually, I don't think a marriage license is some kind of magic but a stable family life is certainly better than the alternative. Unfortunately, in the case of Santorum, it's all about looking down on the least fortunate among us and basically blaming the victims of the bad economy and therefore justifying not being willing to help them improve their situations instead of cutting programs and turning their backs on the needy. People make mistakes and obviously there are those who have children when they're too young and who fail to recognize the importance of getting an education before starting a family but the sad fact is this is NOT the land of equal opportunity it once was at least believed to be. Annie

I am living in povrety and I have no children. I am a college graduate, but have not been able to find work due to a bad economy. My husband broke his foot has a foot condition called Charot's Foot which has left him wheel chair bound and the doctor does not want him to work. I am a graduate student, but am afraid that once I graduate school I will still have no job. I am hoping to get out of poverty soon.

Interesting thoughts here... but I do know there are people, even Christian families who have followed all of these steps, and are still struggling. Personally though this does make a lot more sense, especially from a Moral Christian standpoint, but people need to remember things are not easy out there. There will be setbacks and struggles. But if you also have a God in your life and put him first usually that will help to keep things ok as well.

The stupidest thing about Santorum's mention of these three things is that he was using it as an argument *against* birth control being legally available.

I don't know the full statistics--and the article won't load, if they're in there--but it seems that a heck of a lot of impoverished people do have children, are uneducated, and do continue to have children. I've heard some state that people who have children young aren't educated, as in they supposedly don't know about birth control. But I call BS on that. I just think there's an inherent lack of motivation and foresight and responsibility with a lot of poorer people. I'm obviously only shooting out a theory here, but whether we're talking about a backwoods hollow, a trailer park, a ghetto, or the PJs, or anything in between, there seems to be little motivation to act responsibly. I think a big part of it is an entitlement culture, at least in actual entitlement cultures. There isn't a drive to do well, only a desire to have done well. And that breeds bitterness that carries over through generations, thinking that 1: someone owes you something, 2: there's no way out, 3: you're not responsible for your actions; someone else is. The poorest places around stay poor for quite a few reasons. While a progressive-minded redistributionist might claim that it's because the 1% somehow steals "their" wealth, someone else, like me, is continuously shouting that the problem is perpetuated with handouts and with treating poor people as victims. With more spent on education, on food stamps, on babies, more tax breaks (via refunds for those who do work), more government housing, etc, etc -- it just all folds in on itself and starts all over again. There are quite a few housing projects and rundown neighborhoods where I live, and I can guarantee that at least 50% of the residences are inhabited by single mothers who either didn't graduate high school or had their kids before they were 20. My cousin is a great example. She had 3 kids--with 3 different guys, ffs!--before she was 17, didn't finish high school, and now she's wholly reliant on handouts. No prospects. No hope. But damn if she doesn't feel as if someone needs to do something for her. And that's not something specific to her attitude. That's something carried by millions throughout the US. I can't speak to it in other countries. And her oldest, now 10, is a prison sentence waiting to happen. My guess: He's find a vulnerable girl to knock up, he'll disappear for whatever reason, and his kids will grow up and do the same. I think it's unfair to say that people are poor because they choose to be. Many do try incredibly hard to escape poverty! My family and me are great examples of that. But there are also so many who just go through life with an entitled anger about them. The schools are biased. The wealthy keep them down. No one cares about their plight. And on and on. I agree with Galston here. Maybe not everyone would escape poverty, but having an education and no mouths to feed before you're responsible and ready is a great way to get ahead in the world.

I wish I had good net connection so I could read the article in full, but for now, I can only base my response on a brief summary you gave, I find it true that early pregnancy can be a reason for economical problems but I disagree that all of them cannot get out of that situation. I know a lot of people who married early but still succeeded in life, although they probably represent the minority. Yes, they kind of learned it the hard way. I am at a point when I'm rethinking about my life, and thinking whether it was always a wise decision to delay settling down. Im still single and wishing I'd married 3 years ago.

I don't know if such theory is legitimate or proved by scientific experiment. But, I do believe, if you do your best, and not lazy at all, get yourself a job, and learn a skill, go to school is the key. And you might have at least 70% to avoid poverty. That is my personal theory, which is also not prove by any eminent experiment too. I hope that I am right.

I think the conclusion he should have came to from that data is that children who grow up in single family households end up poor. Or possibly even more to the stereotype kids who grow up poor end up poor. There's a glaring, and what should be obvious, problem with his conclusion. In the statement that 79% of children from families who don't do these 3 things ends up poor we really only have to look at the single most important factor. People who don't graduate high school statistically make less money. Therefor the most important factor is education and thus income. If we negated the other 2 factors the 79% would probably only be reduced by the number who were married to people with good incomes. What this really shows, is that low income children turn into low income adults. All his blah blah about single parents having delinquent children isn't related to income, it's related to crime. If we took out graduating from high school we'd see higher incomes, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and probably lower rates of illegitimate births. If the 2nd was most important then he could have precluded the other 2. Of course we could remove the social science from this entire idea and simply say that the most important factor in poverty is income. Seeing as no one with a good income is poor regardless of how poorly they spend their money.

Financial is most important no matter what in the world we live in.the term they allways use no money no talk