<p>I would like to see Bloomberg take on the issue of reducing out of wedlock births. Reducing the number of single mothers would dramatically reduce poverty in America. Bloomberg probably has enough credibility to make some impact.</p>
<p>What would you propose for the males who have impregnated the females, Razor?</p>
<p>
Of course all of the kids do. They also deserve healthful and appealing meals available at school, which in NYC, thankfully, they have available. As they should. But it is not outside the realm of ability or talent for many of those poor people to pack a lunch if they choose to. They aren’t obligated to do so, but it’s not such a huge challenge that it couldn’t be done.</p>
<p>Make sure males pay child support at a minimum. Possibly training or teaching about the importance of being a father.</p>
<p>Jonri, I don’t include college students who have families to back them as our “poor”. Though, there are college students who are struggling terribly because they do come from families with a lot of challenges and they are poor in the traditional sense too. It’s a whole other situation when that is the case, and those students often feel estranged from their fellow classmates, especially at school where most students are getting help from their parents. Those who go tho colleges that do not have a lot of PELL eligible or close to it, students, and are so eligible themselves often find themselves in a whole new world and they have to relearn the rules and the vocab for it. It may be the first time they’ve ever been so close for so long and interacting with those who are not challenged economically, and it can make you feel ever so much poorer.</p>
<p>I was not poor as a high school kid. My parents were lower middle income, however, and there were few kids at my school that came from my economic background. Not that all of them were rich, but my roommates parents were both professors, for example, and quite a few had doctors as fathers. It was a big awakening for me as had gone to a high school where my family was “royalty” among those there in that my father was college educated, they were frugal and disciplined with their money, my mother kept a very upscale home, no big deal family problems. bills were all paid, and a lot of emphasis on education and culture. Only 30% of the kids went on to a 4 year full time college and about a dozen of us to private colleges. Most everyone joined the military, got married or looked for a jou in retail, or where ever an 18 year old could find work, maybe some picked up college later, bit by bit.</p>
<p>So it was rather a shock to go from there to an environment where I was at the lower part of the economic picture, and my family were not at impressive with their interests in education/culture. Those kids had me beat hands down. I never felt poor until I went to college, and I actually had more of my own money than most kids as I had gotten a number of scholarships and in those days, one could double, triple, quadruple dip, and I did. They would talk about being poor and out of money, when it was not my definition of the such. When the year ended, it was pretty clear that I was not rooming with a number of them who were getting off campus apartments that were very pricey. It was the student ghetto for me, and there were a number of kids in the same boat as I was. But I remember being so amazed at the allowance amounts some of those kids got. </p>
<p>So I can just imagine how much more difficult it would be for those kids who came from truly disadvantaged families and go to a school where most of the kids come for well to do families.</p>
<p>How does one force ANYONE to go to parenting classes, or fufill any requirements without a law right there? My niece’s SO is barely working, and is spending most of his time “playing”. Wouldn’t be surprised if he fathers another child, maybe two this year. My niece now has an excuse to stay home–she has to care for the baby, and its’ more difficult now for her parents to withhold funds, privileges or anything with the infant in the picture. I have no idea what one can do about this situation. A friend of mine has a DD who is 26 years old who has had 4 children, married to none of the fathers, and one of them in jail. Where does one go from there? Though she is a terribly neglectful mother–likes to go out partying still, the parents can’t get a toe hold to have her so declared. She’s lost a baby already (that’s why one former SO is in jail) but it’s still not enough. And she’s not alone. She has her crowd of friends all pretty much in the same situation. They feed on each other’s situations to justify their own, and my friend fears for the lives and safety of those grandchildren. She’s aged 20 years in the last 7. </p>
<p>As for child support, many of these guys are living off of other girlfriends. They have no jobs or none on record.</p>
<p>You know, cptofthehouse, sometimes the only options are miserable home lives or taking the children out of the homes. It’s hard to say that, but it’s true. There is a gray area that isn’t truly abuse or neglect, but is a home that won’t ever allow the children to thrive. There had been some talk about encouraging boarding schools for kids from such homes, but no one has the heart or the money to push that. As a society, we always want to fix everything but sometimes we just can’t and that’s why there will always be some amount of poverty and dysfunction. As I know you know, here in NYC, the schools provide meals, immunizations, vision/hearing screening, speech therapy, birth control, etc. There’s not much more that they can provide outside of actually taking custody and sometimes it’s still not enough. And even in cases like you mentioned, it often takes serious abuse before something is done. On the third hand, sometimes kids who end up in state custody don’t fare well, either, because government workers are only people after all and make mistakes. There is a child who has been missing from my community for three years. Mom was arrested on a misdemeanor charge, the child (7) was placed in foster care and promptly fell off the face of the earth never to be seen again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the government can force an adult to buy health insurance, it would not be difficult for the government to force adult parents to take parenting training. </p>
<p>Bloomberg has control of NYC schools in many ways. Surely he could require teenage students to take parenting courses informing them how much better their lives and the lives of their children will be if the children are born to two loving parents instead of living with one parent.</p>
<p>
Nope. Absolutely no idea. Living on food stamps? Growing up in poverty? Nope. No idea what that’s like. </p>
<p>Somehow, we managed to take 5 minutes to pack our lunch the whole time I was growing up. Didn’t really have a choice seeing as my school didn’t provide lunch and we couldn’t afford “hot lunch”. It really doesn’t take that long to throw a pb&j, apple, and nuts in to a bag.</p>
<p>At the risk of going more off topic, it is virtually impossible to get fathers to pay child support unless they are in traditional jobs where wages can be garnered. Not the situation for most of these young unmarried fathers.<br>
FWIW - I see plenty of obese middle class folks around; helath is not only a problem of the poor.
Education is great, but I think the high cigarette taxes have impacted smoking in addition to the unpleasant ads. Even though I am a fiscally consevative capitalist, I would be fine with more taxes on unhealthy foods/beverages.
Agree about the slippery slope, but some common sense lines can be drawn. Noone needs 32 oz of coke (or juice or sweet coffee…).</p>
<p>Well, you know if I order pizza for my family of five and the two boyfriends, a two-liter bottle of soda makes my life easier and cheaper than multiple smaller bottles. Larger bottles can be shared and in NYC each bottle has a deposit.</p>
<p>It’s not the bottles that are targeted, but the big cups, are they? But I’ve caught mine drinking soda (and other drinks) from those huge bottles. Strictly not allowed here, but…If Bloomberg caught a sight of them, he’d have a fit, I guess.</p>
<p>I’m of the view that Mayor Bloomberg is taking a clumsy hamfisted approach because he feels he knows better and because he’s probably trying to please the food police activist contingent* who aren’t above using big brother tactics to force their views on food on others.</p>
<p>I’d prefer focusing on the persuasive educational models that he’s used in earlier campaigns as that provides information to constituents while preserving their individual autonomy and dignity as freedom loving US citizens. </p>
<p>It also showcases how Bloomberg misread the mentality most native New Yorkers have. We tend to be mostly of the MYODB school of thought and don’t care for annoying busybodies…like politicians telling us how to eat. :D</p>
<ul>
<li>There were some like this at my LAC. Some were so irritatingly self-righteous and domineering in their manner that I enjoyed seeing their annoyance the few times I went for a McDonalds meal…even though that’s not my usual habit. Especially considering it was an occasional treat, pricy growing up, and I would go through the “getting sick of US fast food phase” if I had it more than a few times a month. Amusingly, I also found every one of them came from well-off upper/upper-middle class suburban families around coastal urban areas…including the NYC area.</li>
</ul>
<p>2 liters are so much cheaper than buying individual bottles. You can often get a 2 liter and a 16 ounce (whatever the size of a standard bottle is) for the same price. Would this ban have stopped the sale of 2 liter bottles? I was under the impression it was just those big cup things.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse, the bottles were targeted too, unless purchased from a supermarket or convenience store. Restaurants that do delivery had to stock up on the smaller bottles in large numbers to prepare to be in compliance.</p>
<p>remember the moonshine laws (prohibition)? coke is going to be a big commodity in NYC now. I mean the black stuff, not the white stuff.</p>
<p>I have no particular quarrel with bloomberg. He’s not my mayor. I believe, from many responses that I’ve read that he’s most likely doing what he should be, since it seems that more than half of his constituents do not object strongly enough to vote him out. However, that kind of thing would not fly here, and I’m very glad. Despite the compelling and understandable arguments in the other direction, I would prefer the government largely stay out of my gun cabinet, refrigerator, bedroom, pocketbook, etc. But this is local government. If this type of control belongs anywhere, this is the place (local).</p>
<p>cromette, his constituents voted twice to term limit him out of office, so he went around them to force himself back on the ballot and then intimidated qualified challengers with his wealth.</p>
<p>I agree with you that issues like this should be local, but I don’t agree that this mayor’s priorities should be so small at this time when there are so many very serious issues facing his city.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must confess. When we go to movies, which we love, our family of four gets one large pop (with diet coke) and one large pop corn. We all share. The refills are free so sometimes, not regularly, during the movies we send one of our kids for a refill. </p>
<p>My point, who knows how and by how many that large cup of soda is going to be consumed. This law is a massive invasion of (personal and economic) freedom rights. It might seem like such inconsequential law, which does not compare with slavery. But I am telling you, this is just a beginning of modern day slavery.</p>
<p>What’s next? Controlling the volume in YOUR headphones? Oh yes, it is on agenda too.</p>
<p>[Bloomberg</a> looks to lower volume on headphones through new program | 7online.com](<a href=“http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9018760]Bloomberg”>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9018760)</p>
<p>If Bloomberg wants to address obesity, why does he not target obese people directly?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone else, besides me, sees the economic consequences of this? Is New York in such great financial shape, that it is OK with small businesses taking an economic hit? Who do you think will suffer the most? It is going to be a small guy. I thought there was such a great concern about poor people.</p>
<p>The thing that was silly about the drink regulations was that it could only be so narrow. It applied to delivery from restaurants, but not to supermarkets. It applied to soda, but not milkshakes or coffee drinks that had more calories. Totally arbitrary.</p>