Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah kids have lower death rate, but more poverty, single-parent families’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 21 2014 10:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Big Al
Chandler, AZ

While feeding, clothing, and educating these poverty-stricken children is the noble responsibility of all those who have the means (whether through extended family, churches, private charities, or public agencies), the really pathetic and tragic circumstance is that adults who can not or will not provide the necessities for these children continue to bring them into this world. This includes those who appear to be middle class, who are fully employed but under-employed, and go through all the visible motions of having their act together, but then send their kids to school for free meals, use food stamps, or depend on others to meet their personal financial responsibilities.

If you can not provide for children, the noble and honest decision is to not have children!! Strategically planning to have others meet your financial responsibilities is a hallmark of the lack of integrity. I wonder if this is an issue in Utah.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Poverty and parents are not somehting they can't be held accountable for. Poverty is the state of the economy and how corporations and government have jointly collaborated to oppress workers and incomes. With the use of cheap labor and slaves and illegals foreign nationals to maintain poverty so they cannot rise up and knock down and fight governemtn for its criminal actions.

Poverty is a creation by business and govnerment denial pretending it is not tier fault. So they blame the people for not having education so they give them debt to obtain education but that doesn't work either becasue education is not the root of poverty. Poverty is the collaboration by business to control government laws to stop government from deporting illegal aliens and tax exempt low cost impoverished labor.

Poverty is not related to education, its the result of government corruption and fraud.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Typical liberal hysteria. The governor and attorney general are spending millions of dollars defending traditional families. That means all these problems will go away because traditional families will have been defended.

Defending traditional families is all about the children. The governor and AG said it, we've read it in DN editorials, we see it in comment after comment from the most conservative citizens. Traditional families and children. Must defend!

Whoever wrote this article is ver misinformed. Utah is all about the children and is therefore spending millions so families will have a mom and a dad and nobody will drop out of school or get free meals in the park or get teen pregnant. Defending traditional families will do that, and build strong bodies 12 different ways and get all the stubborn stains out. Plus, traditional families are fat free and get great gas milage.

Yep. For the children. Millions of dollars.

sally
Kearns, UT

I don't see poverty as the main issue here. I see parents who lack an understanding or desire to organize their lives and learn how to parent. I grew up in a home with very little income. My parents valued education and learning. It was a part of everyday life. The focus of our home life was provident living (wise use of resources) instead of focusing on more money to live a competitive life with relatives and neighbors. We learned that we could not compete with others, especially when they were filing bankruptcies and refinancing their mortgages to live a lifestyle. Poverty comes at all income levels. Some people are better at hiding it.

When we learn to focus on provident living (wise use of resources) instead of how many dollars we can earn and spend at dead end jobs, then we will also see a change in the focus of life in Utah. Most two income families would be better off with only one parent working. Most people do not understand how to analyze income and taxes.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

There are two ways to not have children you can't afford, assuming you aren't able to afford birth control, either.

1. Abortion
2. Abstinence

In as much as it isn't noble or honest to kill an unborn baby, I prefer the latter, but I also know that's not likely going to happen. So if birth control were more readily available to low income women, I wonder if some of these issues might be lessened? Government funded birth control or government funded food subsidies and health care, either way, it would involve our tax dollars. I wonder which one would be cheaper?

RBB
Sandy, UT

My2Cents,

Your view on business oppressing workers is interesting. So if I close down my business my employees will be better off? My lowest paid employee is a college student who makes $15/hr. I am sure that he and his family will be much better off having no income than suffering through the oppression I am imposing on him. It is this kind of attitude that is destroying this country. Yes, there are some employers who pay the absolute minimum and do not treat their employees well. There are a greater percentage of employees who show up late, spend half their work day on Facebook and personal calls and do just enough to avoid being fired. It always amazes me how I can hire two people for the same job and one has twice (or more) the output of the other.

Poverty is very much correlated with education. If you are only qualified to get a minimum wage job flipping burgers, odds are pretty good you will end up poverty. Most of us used minimum wage jobs to learn skills and advance. Others simply hang out and do not invest in themselves.

1Observer
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@hockeymom

Birth control is readily available to low income women via Medicaid or your local planned parenthood office. It isn't about birth control - it's about common sense. I have worked with a number of young women who purposefully got pregnant for a lot of silly reasons even though they had easy access to free birth control. In most of these situations they were turning to churches or government or both to help them out. They idea of self-sufficiency or changing their circumstance never entered their minds. They seemed hopeless about changing their "fate" and were resigned to let the forces of nature or the gods determine their future. The issues around poverty run much deeper than just money and involve mental and emotional health, education, physical health, family history, etc. We somehow have to treat the individual and try to change their view about themselves and the their ability to influence their future and improve their circumstances. Public assistance should be a short-term fix, not a life-long subsidy supporting a sub-standard lifestyle.

dalefarr
South Jordan, Utah

Increasing the minimum wage is the best thing we could do to reduce poverty.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

"RBB" and "MY2cents" are BOTH right.

I salute RBB who pays a decent wage. I KNOW firsthand the dilemma he faces. I also know that his attitude is becoming more and more rare.

Too many employers don't follow the rules - much less use much common sense, at least concerning the long-term health of our nation. I think (hope) those are the ones that "my2cents" is referring to.

At some point in our not-too-distant past there was a "bond" between the working man and their employers. Somehow, over the past few decades that "bond" has been broken.

One of my biggest complaints about things in the U.S. now is that SOME companies don't at least follow the rules regarding hiring illegal workers. And NO ONE makes them.

Then there's the problem of "outsourcing" that politicians don't seem to care much about either.

American companies CAN compete - and, at the same time provide a decent wage to their workers - those two issues ARE very compatible.
We just have to elect representatives that recognize that ALL workplace/competitive rules are enforced.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments