Related study:

http://jenni.uchicago.edu/papers/Heckman_Moon_etal_2010_NBER_wp16180.pdf

NPR short podcast. Worth listening to:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/12/139583385/preschool-the-best-job-training-program

For once I agree with you, Luke. Pre-schoolers are probably benefited by being removed from their intellectually impoverished homes for a short period every day and having their minds stimulated.

However, structured education too soon is bad for a mind that might develop into true genius if left to its own devices. School tends to shove thinking into boxes. This idea of trying to teach children to read at age three is daft.

@Randy

Always nice to agree. :)

I can see the positive intent, but what about studies showing that Headstart has had no effect? Is any program to take kids from poor environment different from Headstart?

Perhaps we need to have headstart for kids and parents together.

@red,

I don't know about the studies you are talking about, nor what variables they focused on. I can conclude that, given the study I posted, there ARE learning environments that DO improve the abilities of people for the rest of their lives. I can't concluded that EVERY learning environment improves the same abilities.

I think it's safe to say that everything can be optimized.

@Steve...You're such a mensch. I think you were born two centuries too late. You are a stereotypical example of a Charles Dickens character, you chose which one.

I don't read books, I live in the real world

@Steve....It's pretty obvious that you don't read books.

I just told you that I don't read books, now we're just getting repetitive.

Put it in a book, then Lyle will get it. Some people would not know that rain is wet, unless they read it in a book.

@Steve.

That's the great thing about the program I proposed. It actually saves money, as one of the studies I posted explains.

The result is that we actually help children and adults, whereas the "Progressives" enslave them, reduce their IQ scores, and expand their voter base. How inhumane can you get!?

@Steve and Greg

Good show. You live up to the wisdom that Tea Party folks are low information folks. Good job.

Tweet this.

Typical elitist liberals, thinking your "higher" education and reading somehow makes you a better person then the rest. While you look down at us we are out producing and providing a living wage to American workers. You can read what others have lived or you can create the next chapter yourself and have someone write about it later.

@Steve....I don't quite understand your obsession with those of education. Having a higher education and reading doesn't eliminate one from being a producer. It is all a matter of awareness. The more one studies, the more that is revealed, giving a greater understanding of the world and our environment in which we live. However, knowledge and understanding are not sufficient, it must be applied.

Personal responsibility??? It's no longer required.
Maybe it was part of natural selection. In the past, if you were not able to take care of your offspring you turned them over to family or friends. In turn they would provide the required mentoring to produce productive adults.

@Greg...The law requires the parent to take personal responsibility. If the parent can't or won't take such responsibility, then the dependent child is placed with an available responsible family member. If a family member is not available, then the child is placed into foster care. The child will remain in foster care while the caretaker is reeducated or if that is not possible the parent's rights will be terminated and the child made available for adoption.

Now if you want to pursue natural selection, we shouldn't interfere in any case and allow those without resources to face the perils of the environment. Of course, then we couldn't consider ourselves to be moral or civilized.

Lyle,

For the sake of argument, you never have defined either "moral" or "civilized."

Also, from a merely naturalistic/materialistic perspective, your use of the terminology is merely arbitrary.

But should they have rights? Being born drug dependent or mentally/physically handicapped due to neglect during pregnancy does not seem fair. Tax payers should pay more, over time, for these children because liberals do not want to give them rights before they are born? We could provide for a lot of healthy kids for what it costs to take care of just one crack-baby.

@Greg....A drug dependent baby is not a lost cause. Once they have been detoxified they can live a normal life and develop without obstructive challenges.

I think children do have a right not to be subjected to a toxic gestational environment that will have a lifelong effect on their health and intelligence. I also believe that they have the right to a decent situation if they are carried to term.

I have two adopted grandchildren who were subjected to abuse and neglect both before and after birth. As my son once said, some people should be sterilized with a rusty can opener.

Of course, responsibility to a child does hinge on the right to not become pregnant and not stay pregnant if the woman wishes.

@Greg -- A child has a right not to be born with handicaps that could have been prevented. But what are you going to do -- lock up a woman for eight months? And where do you draw the line? She had a half a glass of wine with dinner once a week -- lock her up! She walked into a room where they were doing painting and sniffed some turpentine fumes -- lock her up! She wants to hike the Appalachian Trail -- lock her up!

This is something men don't tend to think about.

I would start by saying the unborn have some rights. Next I would prosecute for obvious neglect, we can do it for a child that is born, I think it could be done for the unborn. Attitude would need change. Currently many babies are treated as throw aways. In Milwaukee you can kill your baby by smothering it with your lazy drunken body, then the Mayor and his lackeys stand there, scratching their heads, and have a press conference. We should prosecute these actions for the same reason we prosecute other bad acts.

So Lyle, it's just OK to have a drug dependent baby?
Here is some info about treatment of babies whose mothers misused prescription pain medications, the crack-babies are even worse.
" If infants do not undergo a methadone treatment program, they may require to long-term care for the resultant developmental and behavioral disorders; thus, placing an added financial burden on state resources. Even infants who undergo a withdrawal program may have long-term difficulties in critical regulatory areas of sleep, feeding, and autonomic function (the portion of the nervous system that regulates involuntary action in areas such as the intestines, heart, and glands)."

wow! how embarrassing.

@Johnny Blade

You demonstrated that Tea Party folks are mean spirited and stupid.

Yeah i am mean spirited because i want to be free .. It must piss you off when you can't get control of someon huh???

"You demonstrated that Tea Party folks are mean spirited and stupid."

Bren, this comment proves you are no better. As you said to me not long ago "I have lost all respect for you".

Greg, I certainly didn't write that.

Bren, Please forgive me. I can get confused at times, but to confuse the two of you is bad news. I retract all of my comment that pertains to you.

Greg I figured that was the case and agree that the layout here can be challenging. All good! : )

I appreciate your excellent posts about babies born with deficits/disabilities due to prenatal neglect and abuse. People who abuse their bodies lack hope and self-respect. This is also a serious issue that must be addressed in promoting good prenatal and post-birth care.

Thank you Bren. I am not hard core on the abortion issue, but I do strongly feel that if you are going to bring a child into this world, they deserve the best chance they can have.

Greg, I 100% agree. Every kid deserves a fighting chance for a successful life!

@Johnny Blade...From birth, children have the right to be protected and nurtured. Children have limited rights until reaching majority and between 18 and 21 they have full rights except for the purchase of alcohol. At age 21 they have unrestricted rights. Is that a good enough answer for you?

Makes you wonder how many abortions Mr Humanist here has paid for..or better yet, made the girl pay for.

@Lyle .. More BS .. so if i murder a pregnant woman i only killed one person .. why at birth, children can be born at 5months but if still in the womb it is open season .. Your phuckin illogic is amazing .. you want gun control but favor killing millions on your "from Birth" LOOPHOLE

@Alfred...I will admit that I have donated money specifically to fund pregnancy termination. So what is your point of your statement?

@Johnny Blade....Many states have laws that if a fetus is still in utero and would be viable if having been born early, then the perpetrator is charged with two counts of homicide.

We have a basic disagreement. The termination is not killing millions. For example: As many as 1:6 pregnancies result in spontaneous miscarriage. If you look at the statistics, the rate of abortions have steadily declined since the mid-1990s. Abortions in the U.S. number 1.5 million per year (2011) and I think that is a fairly stable number. The issue with me is not abortion per se, but a woman's right of choice. No one is insisting a woman should have an abortion and such a decision should be by free choice. I also support women to receive prenatal and postnatal care if they should carry the baby to term. I also support adoption as an option to abortion. You have to remember of those 1.5 million abortions; if born, a majority would probably wind up on government assistance. You're already complaining about all the people on government assistance, in reality if you support right to life, then you should also support government assistance.

We have people who want to protect unborn fetuses in despite of the fact that no tests exist to identify/measure fetal cognition. Edgar Cayce claimed to regress clients to fetal memories, that is fine. What's not fine to me is how the deadbeat dad issue does not receive the same amount of indignation and focus. Of the women I have known who have had abortions, all but one were due to trauma from lack of partner support (emotional and/or financial).(The "one" was due to mental instability).

Parents are the primary influencers in children's lives. Socio-emo-economic status has a tremendous impact on the child beginning before K5 kindergarten (I've shared these stats before: best prepared kids have 1,000 hours reading time with parents and least prepared have 25 going into K5). The gap begins in K5 and becomes an insurmountable chasm going forward. Why such a difference? Parental literacy/English language deficits, food/economic insecurity, work schedules; there are many reasons.

If healthy live births are the priority here then we need to make it the priority. That means ensuring pre-natal care, healthy/safe living environment, parental readiness/love/support. Cutting programs that WIC, food stamps, etc. are a disaster.

@Bren

On the contrary, almost every type of scan that can be performed on a born child can be performed on an unborn child. The problem is getting the child to hold still, but the scans are and have been done on a regular basis. Prenatal learning (mostly auditory) is an actual field of study.

But putting all that aside, are you saying that ignorance is a defense? Are you saying that passing through a birth canal suddenly "turns on" a critical part of the brain?

As far as the pro-choice argument goes, the delineation between when to kill and when not to kill is purely arbitrary. Why not, as Russ Feingold once argued (but had removed from the record), allow mothers to kill their children after they are delivered?

@Luke....There are philosophical arguments that refer to agency and support infanticide up to the first thirty days after birth. From a philosophical perspective it is defensible. Only since the advent of extraordinary medical intervention has it been possible to support many premature births, sustainment after birth for infants born with substantial birth defects, etc. I don't think I would your Russ Feingold's statement as an argument to Bren. In addition, whether you count viability at conception, at birth or 30 days after birth; it is a arbitrary societal decision. You can't depend on religious tradition to settle the question either since there isn't any consistent view.

Luke, technology may be getting closer but it's not there yet. I am not suggesting that the brain switches on at birth but science cannot identify when/why/how fetal cognition occurs. Response to physical stimuli is quantitative.

Concerning the arbitrary age of when to kill, I ask this: why the insistence on bringing an unwanted child into the world when there are few/no provisions to ensure that the child becomes a cherished member of society? A former colleague of mine who served as an abortion clinic escort told me the best throwback/shutup line to the ugly screaming mob was "Fine, write me a check for $100 grand to raise this kid." I say again, if deadbeat dads/parents were pursued and vilified with the same level of zeal and fervor as we go after the prospective mothers we might see some positive action.

If I had my way, the social stigma of unwed pregnancy would go away (it still exists and still fuels abortions). Birth control and sex ed (well-rounded curriculum) would not go away. And parents would support their biological children. Punishments for under-the-table employers would be expensive. And for those who refuse to work the support would be deducted from their future SS and Medicare benefits. If the state "owns" children in these situations, what can we do to make sure that they know they are deeply valued through quality care and good role models? Self-respect leads to good decision-making.

Lyle,

My argument works with Bren, considering that she was discussing unborn babies. Also, your appeal to "philosophical arguments" opens a big door, given that there are philosophical arguments for killing anyone.

Finally, you are wrong that people can't appeal to religious tradition. Your point that there is no consensus does not prohibit any individual from utilizing their tradition or encouraging others to agree. In fact, there is no philosophical consensus either

Bren,

This issue is not if or when YOU can decide when infant cognition occurs. You are not the barrier, given that we already know that it DOES occur.

As for your argument about unwanted babies, I suppose you can demonstrate that no one would want them? My sister had to wait 17 months to adopt her daughter. She wanted a Hmong child, but she was willing to take any child. People go overseas to get their children for good reason.

According to this article from the International Business Times, the U.S. has the second-highest rate of child poverty (23%) in the developed world (Romania is worst).
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/346943/20120530/childhood-poverty-u-s-second-highest-rate.htm

That is unacceptable. I'll maintain my stance that it is impossible to isolate and attack abortion rights (one result of a multi-tiered social issue). It makes no sense to bring children into a world of misery and poverty. Don't add to the misery and poverty, attack the causal factors and change the "results!"

Bren,

Your leap in logic is obvious. Poverty does not equal unhappiness. For 99.9% of human history, mankind could only dream of living like the poor of our country. 200 years ago a King lived in a stone castle and feared for his life day and night. He had plenty to eat, but he pooped in a copper pot and ate food that was prepared by unclean people in unclean environments. He owned a couple of books and read by candle light.

Now, go to impoverished homes around the country (come with me if you like) and see how many unhappy kids there are. Ask them if they want to die. The truth is, if they are loved and fed (and the government will see that they are) they are relatively happy.

Luke, fetal cognition is a point of contention; the need for excellent prenatal care is not. I use the term "unwanted" in reference to that % of abortions made because the mother cannot care for/afford the child and/or fears social stigma. Congratulations to your sister on her successful adoption! My point as always is that children need to be cherished.

Children who are loved and nurtured generally grow up to be loving and nurturing in turn. Promoting these types of outcomes is going to reduce the number of fear/economic-based abortions and address other social problems.

Luke, I believe you might be discounting the differences in the cost of living. In some parts of the world $24,000k for a family of four is an excellent income. Here it is at/near the federal poverty line.

Where there is hope there is happiness. We need more hope and not just among those of low income.

Bren,

Yes, "unwanted" can only mean the the mother does not want the baby, given that there are others who probably DO want the baby.

Take your example of the person asking people for 100k for the baby. Few can offer that, so no one will step up to write the check. But offer them the child, and they will most certainly take the child, and will spend that much over the lifetime of the child. That's why your argument is fallacious.

Finally, poverty is relative.

Luke, the takeaway from my colleague about the shut-up line was that there were no solutions offered to the women being escorted, only name calling and verbal abuse. For a woman fearing social stigma verbal abuse is one of, if not the most compelling argument for getting the abortion (whore, baby-killer, murderer, etc.). When faced with a potential solution, i.e. take responsibility for caring for this child, the modern-day stone throwers had no response or counter-solutions to offer.

Is poverty "relative?" One of the worst aspects of child poverty is the lifelong impact (developmental, emotional, etc.) that living in food/economic insecurity can have.

Bren,

Interesting story, with lots of drama involving faceless individuals, and an ironic twist at the end.

But there are families that will take the baby. You know it an I know it.

@Luke...My point is that we can argue philosophical precepts all day long and still not gain a consensus, including nihilistic arguments. The same holds true for religion, truth is subjective to belief. What we seek is a consensus of values. If we value life and the survival of the species, then we do need to find consensus as to what we are prepared to do, as a society, to achieve the stated societal values. If we agree to protect children and give them what they need to become a productive citizens, then it shouldn't be a matter of money to afford such care.

Also, adoption is a viable option, but we must assure that the placement is not placing the child/children in as much danger or more than they just left. I know some who use adoption for their financial benefit, especially adoption of children of parents who have had their parental rights terminated. Also, there are far too many people providing foster care just for the money.

Bren,

Yes, poverty is relative. And yes, everything impacts everything. So?

@Luke....I agree that just because someone is in poverty that it doesn't necessarily mean unhappiness. However, review Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and reaffirm what is basic survival needs.

Lyle,

Regarding your last post, you say:

"" If we value life.., then it shouldn't be a matter of money to afford such care."":

My purpose in writing in this thread has been to show that the Progressive Movement is not in any way the morally superior movement that you made it out to be. It has enslaved many people to the government and made many of them less of what they would have been otherwise.

In addition, the Movement does not value life; rather, it values a quality of life, because that is what it promises its voters. The fact that you admit that there is an argument for killing children months after they are born makes my point. The conservative movement values the life of the individual first, whereas the Progressive Movement values the quality of life for the species first, and caters to the less valuable life of the individual so as to expand the voter base.

@St. Swithin...I know. They don't seem to understand that if you're going to support children, it has to be in spite of irresponsible parents and guardians. Whenever, there isn't anyone to take responsibility for the care and welfare of a child, then it's our duty to step in.

Lyle,

Yet every word you used in your post above is relative to a value system: "care," "welfare," "responsibility."

@Alfred...If you're going to throw numbers out, then get it right. Since Roe v Wade there has been over 53 million pregnancies terminated.

But Alfred, some Baby Boomers are staunchly anti-abortion. You want to dance on their graves too?

@Randy1949...I would like to see Alfred dancing on the graves since he doesn't dance.

@Team Christine....You've gone completely off the rails. Dismantling families for profit is an insane statement. Milwaukee County receives over 50,000 referrals a year. Of that number only 10K require further investigation and 2,500 children are detained for abuse or neglect. When a child is detained, they always attempt to place the child with a responsible family member first. If none are available, then the child is placed with a qualified foster care family. The mission no matter the circumstance is to make every effort to reunite the child with the family.

By ranting about child welfare professionals you are doing a great disservice to people that end up having to do a dangerous thankless job.

I don't get what the Magna Carta or Eugenics have anything to do with the issue in question. You are not very clear in the connections.

By ranting about the homeless you are doing a great disservice to people that end up having to do a dangerous thankless job.

Lyle,

If I said that the Movement is ONLY interested in keeping people dependent, then I was wrong to do so. My position is that it IS interested in that to some degree, simply as a matter of pragmatism. I've touched on how that works, to some degree, an I will do so some more at a later time.

My family moved to Wisconsin from Missouri because all of our family is here. Also, my mom didn't want her kids to spend the last half of their childhood in a rural area, so we moved here to get more educational opportunities. My dad had struck it rich in banking and realestate and wanted to something to help the poor, which was something that he had always been active in.

When we moved to Wisconsin, my parents got involved in helping refugees from Laos. Families of refugees lived in our house from the time I was 13 until long after I went to college. Then my parents left for SE Asian to help the poor, which is where they now live..

My wife's parents were Ukrainian Germans who eventually left due to WWII and fled to Germany and then to the US. My wife learned English when she went to public school at the age of 6. My wife became my first and last girlfriend at the age of 13.

Because my brothers and sisters were around Hmong people (from Laos) around the time they grew up, my brother and both of my sisters married Hmong spouses. Some cousins met their spouses (1 hispanic, 1 Nigerian, 1 Jamaican) when at school out east. The rest of my relatives are white.

Holy melting pot Batman.

I forgot to mention that my nephew, who is half Hmong, will be marrying a young woman who is half Puerto Rican next June.

@skinnyDUDE...Change what incentives? I'm interested in your plan.

What incentives? I'll bite. How about the many subtle and not so subtle ways our government rewards people for remaining dependent and punishes them for success?

I lost count years ago of the number of people with cases in which their poverty is greater if they take up employment than if they remain unemployed, due to the poor design of various government programs designed to help them. That's certainly a terrible way to incentivize someone to be a productive citizen.

On the other hand, if you do manage to find a way to make a lot of money one year, our tax system practically destroys you - leaving you little to no chance of working your way up in life. Speaking from personal experience, my after-tax earnings per hour worked are much higher if I make a point of working less to avoid the high-end of government taxation. I made the mistake of burning myself out working very hard for a few years only to see my hopes of financial security dashed by overwhelming taxes. Years of study in finance have taught me there are ways around much of that taxation, but only if you are wealthy, not if you are trying to work your way up. Again, the incentive is quite strong to avoid work and effort, promoting failure instead of success.

I guess I'd have to suggest carefully revising government assistance programs to avoid perverse disincentives. And maybe adjust taxes to not hit the people in the middle quite so hard when trying to work their way up.

@jbw -- it isn't so much the government rewarding dependency as it is the capitalist economic system punishing those who try to work but find that salary and benefits don't even equal their cost of living. The answer isn't to reduce benefits to make poor people's lives even more miserable.

The best way to do it was the so-called welfare reform of the 90s -- housing subsidies, food stamps, child care subsidies, BadgerCare, the earned income credit. All of those actually rewarded the person who went out and worked a job, even if it paid very little. But now, of course, these are being attacked as expensive entitlements.

You agree it's a good example for children to have a working parent, right?

How much salary and benefits does your wife draw from the social welfare system?

@joe perez -- How much salary and benefits does any public servant draw for their work? Mrs. Ruble helps kids who need help. Do you honestly have a problem with that?

@joe perez....How much do you think she should be paid?

@skinnyDUDE...I am familiar with Sowell and his economic philosophy which was derived while he was a government worker in the D.C. area when he was early in his career. There are a few things I agree with him about, but there is much more that I disagree. His ideas of providing incentives really don't directly relate to the care of children. Our tax policy is so upside down that for those seeking upward mobility there is a clear hole in the system. This hole begins where a family or individual no longer qualifies for benefits and ends when they begin making enough to be self sufficient without assistance. This level is called either a living wage (for an individual) or a family wage (for a family of four). Both are dependent on the local cost of living. As you well know, prevailing wages are dependent on supply and demand. The less skilled the job, the lower the wage. We currently have a problem, in as much; that lower end employment opportunities are becoming
extremely limited. As the economy has softened so has wages forcing once middle class workers accepting lower wage positions and forcing the least skilled completely out of the workforce and dependent on the safety net. It is not as you describe as the least amount of effort for the most benefit. To earn a living wage now @ minimum wage, requires working two full time jobs or 80 hours/week. The other problem is that even with an income of $14.50/hour, they still would be hard pressed to be able to afford healthcare.

@skinnyDUDE...(continued) This is not a problem that is going away and I don't know what kind of incentives could be crafted to solve this problem. There are just too many people chasing too few jobs with too little critical skills.