That's nonsense. First off your statement is simplistic and avoids the truth of poverty... Poverty isn't strictly limited to how much money you have. And success is not measured by money alone. Secondly, even someone who makes a living BELOW the poverty line can indeed save and grow their money provided they live within their means and sacrifice. How do I know? I have done it.

Also there is choice... Choice matters. ANd it is the poverty of foresight and values that creates many problems for the so-called poor. If you have no money why are you having children? Yet people do it every day. If you have no money or no health incurance  why are you smoking or drinking? Yet people do it every day. If you are broke why do you have an iPhone or a big screen TV or a BMW? Yet there are plenty of 'poor' people who have these things.

I know 'rich' people people who have gobs of money (I work in medicine mind you) who don't buy cell phones to avoid the monthly bill AND so they cannot be called at any time other than when they are home. Or they have been driving the same car for damn near 20 years and are driving it until the wheels fall off just to avoid having a car payment. Or people who live in modest studio apartments. Or people who wait until they are well into their 30s before having kids. I could go on for lines and lines and lines. All of these people I mentioned either make over $200,000 a year as individuals. The point is that choices impact everything you do and when you have impoverished values and upbringing (which the welfare state provides in spades) you tend to repeat the cycle.

And as for farmers working hard and not being rich so what? Do they like what they do? Are they happy? Wuld they trade being a farmer for another career that would make them a boat load of money? Maybe they would, but then that would be a choice they would have to make wouldn't it?

Seems like a double standard to me. Look I don't disagree that a man should 'opt' out of caring for his child... But in this day and age of equality between the sexes should then a woman not have the option to 'opt' out either?

Not sure what you point is.

I highly disagree with you on the statement that no one is starving in USA.   There are also plenty of poor people that are malnourished.  I can provide some links that shows the problem with food security in the USA among the poor.  What links to you have to back up your claims?  Sure there are plenty of fat people that live in poverty but there are millions that don't know when their next meal will come (or a malnourished).  You have nothing to back up your claims.  Food bank... Don't talk to me about food bank.. I went to one when I was in college and they gave shit food (which easily can lead to malnourished).  You know what they gave me in the food box?  A bunch of discontinued snacks (or snacks that didn't sell in grocery store) and canned food.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

Yeah it's true if you don't live within your means and you are already poor, you only make yourself poorer. It is a bit like that in my family. A lot of them smoke and drink and have takeaways a lot. They get expensive phones, drive alot and don't save up so are massively in debt for it, because they don't keep track of their spending. My mum on the other hand gets paid half of what they earn and let she has almost no debt because she plans her spending well and saves money wherever possible. State benefits did help her alot though while i grew up. 

But, my point was more about the poor in the developing world most of who work very long hours on farms or factories. They do work hard but even by their standards don't get paid enough. People in the developing world can't really complain for the reasons you said unless they are homeless.

And i understand what you mean by choices but to some people having a child is far more valuable than being rich and you don't need 200k to live comfortably, maybe 30k should be good enough. But you also have to take into account the cost of living. Stuff like fuel and rent are increasingly unaffordable (in the UK anyway) and depending on where you live, giving up the car is not an option. 

But despite all that, i think the poor do need some government support in free healthcare and education and possibly benefits if they need them. 

That's the impression I got when you said irresponsibility. But maybe you meant unprotected sex?

The person I was talking to said if women are allowed to abort babies, then men should be able to opt out of paying child support.

My point was that would discourage men from taking precautions to prevent a pregnancy because the child wouldn't be their responsibility. The country already has a big enough problem dealing with dead beat dads.

Google the terms obesity and poverty together and you will get numberous hits to the CDC, HHS, NHANSE, WHO and countless news stories from just about every "news" organization you can think of.  Throw in diabetes and you'll get even more.

Also you might want to check the term "Food insecurity" and find out exactly what that means. It certainly does not mean starving...  Also you will note from those links you posted, food security (according to them) is not reserved for the poor. I am sorry but food insecurity is NOT something we need to address in this country beyond educating people on making better food choices.

Also, directly from the (2010) CDC mortality statistics 1,258 people in the US died in the US of 'malnurishment.' Epidemic? I think not. And malnutrition also does not necessarily mean starvation or lack of food. Imbalances of electrolytes, vitamins and minerals can all lead to malnutrition EVEN if you are eating plenty of food. That could even include neglect or forced starvation but that would not necessarily be caused by ones socio-economic status as much as it is caused by another person cruelty.

The epidemic in the US especially amongst those living at or below the poverty line is poor eating habits and the government subsidation of so-called staples to the detriment and increased cost of healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. Its cheaper to eat hamburgers and french fries than eat salads, fresh fruits and vegitables and lean sources of protein. Which has lead to our epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Kindey failure for instance is on the rise all of the country and the number 1 cause of acute and chronic kidney failure is diabetes. Diabetics have all types of complication associated with their disease and it is because we eat like shit and eat too much of it.

Also, as I mentioned poorer people have more 'leisure time' and children in poorer households watch more TV and lead more sedintary lifestyles. A mixture of leisure time and yes dual working households which are notorious for latchkey kids can impact that as well (as far as children's eating and leisure time habits as well as deliquency) but when you are on welfare, food stamps, unemployment you arent working are you? No you are sitting on your butt watching Jerry Springer eating government subsidized fatty cakes.

I know that sounds judgemental but not only did I grow up in that environment but I went into Nursing where I have worked for the last 12 years of my life and I see it all the time. I see the poor choices people make (none of us are immune from that by the way) and what the unhealthy habits do to people. I also spent nearly half of that verseas as a nurse/soldier where I have actually seen starvation and REAL poverty... The kind of no flushing toilets or running water poverty. Not the I can't afford a PS4 or an iphone type of poverty.

We in America have NO idea what poverty is until you go out into the world were it truely exsists.

I would never assume that there are no hard working "poor" there are plenty of them but the point is that does not mean they are impoverished or even unnhappy or unhealthy. Yes not having a lot of money can limit your choices and/or options. You do raise some good points, and yes some people can actually make good on the use of government assistance. There are exceptions to the rule and my main point is just that it creates more harm than good when you plunder others to the benefit of another. The lack of appreciation and attitude of entitlement is very destructive... Just look at ANY houing project and you can see the lack of pride or gratitude in how quickly many of those projects become destroyed or unlivable.

No one would say that the POTUS, or Bill gates, or The Queen of England has the same optionsor resources as your avergae Joe but who is to say they aren't just as happy or content? And if one feels that they are not paid enough then they DO have options as they are not indentured or slaves (though I am sure people feel that way at time during their working lives LOL) and need to be able to take stock in their lives and sacrifice to change that IF that is what they want. It can be done and NO not everyone will always get those posh lifestyles they dream of etc. and NO amount of government support will change that.

As for having a child, and it is of value to you then why would you have it when you KNOW you simmply cannot afford it? Why doom this human you 'love' and/or cherish to poverty and misery? Look I'm not prude or unrealistic. But asking people to think first and at least CONSIDER keeping their junk in their pants is not unreasonable if you can't afford a child.

I'm for help for those who cannot help themselves. Orphan children and those born with disabilities need help. Unfortunately we are forced today to funnel that help through their parents who are the source of the problem in the first place! These kids are born and then the parents mismanage the financial help given by the state or abuse it and many times those who truely need the help don't often get it. I think welfare is still, even after our best attemt in the mid 90's to reform it, to lax and rife with fraud and abuse.

We used to things like mutal aid societies and while we still have charities for children they suffer due to the lack of funding because while the government has taken over much of the 'charitable giving' though inefficient and corrupt redistribution of resources, people are forced to cut back on charitable giving.

There is no such thing as utopia here on earth and no amount of government assistance will change that.

A limit has to exist, because eventually you reach the point at which a baby is now, within most reasonable standards, a fully formed human being. Half of babies born at 24 weeks (12 weeks less than the general length for a pregnancy) survive. Hence many would argue at that point you have committed murder. I personally believe abortion should be available to all women, but 5 months is more than enough time for someone to decide if they believe they are capable of raising a child.

In regards to the population comment, at least in England, we actually need people having more children. Our population is about to go on a downwards slope (I can't remember the exact statistic, but I believe it's 1.8 children per family at the moment). We need to maintain a stable population, not reduce it. Doing that would just put us in the same situation japan is reaching, where there are too many older people compared to younger, putting huge and growing pressure on the younger generations to support the older. This makes the newer generations even less likely to want to have kids of their own, as kids are expensive, thus begin a vicious and very slippery spiral down.