Ecstatic, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Help me out?

(1)You might mean that, for ANY GIVEN PERSON living in poverty, it's possible for HER to get out of poverty.
(2)You might mean that it's possible for some people to get out of poverty.

Do you see the crucial difference between (1) and (2)?  Here's one way to bring out the difference.  Suppose 1000 people in poverty each do EVERYTHING you say they're supposed to do, and 995 of them stay in poverty anyway; five get out.  If that were the case, (1) would be proven false.  (The 995 did everything right but stayed in poverty anyway.)  But (2) would be proven true.  (The 5 got out; so some people can escape poverty.)  So (1) and (2) are very different claims.

Which of those are you intending to claim: (1), (2), or some third option I can't see?

(1) is provably false; I'm sure Baypuppy's citations will contain ample evidence of that, if you doubt it, and if you are not convinced by your own reasoning and that of others posting here.  (2) Is obviously true; nobody here thinks that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, with no exceptions whatsoever, ever gets out of poverty.  So if all you're arguing is (2), I'm sure everyone here agrees with you.  (2) is proven by your anecdotal evidence; (1) is not.

Assuming there is no physical or mental disability and assuming the person knows, at age 18, what choices to make and which direction to go in ... I mean number 1.

The problem is that most people do NOT know which direction to go in. It's not that it's impossible to get out or to beat "the system" ...  if it were impossible, no one would do it. It's that many people simply do not know how. Especially at age 18.

Statistics only prove that X amount of people remain in poverty, while X amount get out. It doesn't tell you WHY they remain at the level of poverty.

The reason that I see around me is that people truly don't know how to get out of their situations, and at age 18 they make mistakes which will decide much of their life.

Even something so simple as birth control or choosing not to have sex can alter a person's life for the better. I know so many people have mentioned the birth control issue - Planned Parenthood gives out condoms for free. Pills are given to you as well, subsidized to your income level. Condoms plus pills plus pulling out all at the same time = fairly foolproof birth control. Further, celibacy is 100%. There are MANY other ways to be sexually close and feel pleasure without intercourse. So, it's a choice people make.

When I see someone have children they can't afford ... that is not "the system," that is just a really bad decision. I'd like to see the statistics on how many kids people on the poverty level have versus how many kids peope have who are not living in poverty. Again, I don't mean to stereotype, which is why I'd like to see research on this ... but, it seems to me, the more money a person has, the less children they have. Which, personally, I think is related as kids are expensive.

To me, again, the issue is WHY do so many people remain in poverty. I think it's because they don't know how to get out, and at age 18 make some pretty awful decisions. The system is not something anyone should ever rely on to help them in life. Historically, no system ever has. IMO, you're on your own - make it or break it.

So, take any given person of sound mind and body ... if they had the knowledge as to how to make it out, they could absolutely make it out.

Just to comment on the student loan note I made It's not bad debt to have student loans, neither is a mortgage. When I made that comment, I was thinking more of people who weren't specialized professionals. But, rather, have a small amount of student loans that could be repaid within a few years if one avoided kids.

Susan - am I that transparent?  ;) And it's anarchist, not libertarian!  ;D

There's a major illusion of wealth in this country; that doctors and lawyers can be in debt sounds crazy. That people can live in $500,000 homes and drive shiny new cars and be flirting with bankruptcy seems absurd; but it's TRUE!

We talk about people who live in humble homes with fancy entertainment equipment (and pay all of their bills), but we ignore the people who disguise themselves as wealthy, and are so far in debt they can't see their way out.

The issue with both of these is actually kind of the same. Neither person has the ability to save money. It is so hard to save money in America anymore. It takes so much planning, willpower and education, not to mention.. you know, money.

@Ecstatic: The birthrate is directly related to education, not finances. I'm biting my tongue at the choice words I have for you boiling down poverty to such an oversimplified explanation. Suffice it to say, it's VERY difficult to go against the grain even if you are of sound mind and body. Further, if you don't have education to support you, as most people do not (check out literacy rates for america as a for instance), you're fairly well screwed.

@SusanB - I very much enjoy Morgan Spurlock's work. I'll def. check that out. Thanks for the recommend!

I remember when they'd leave me home alone when I was 5 and sick to go to work.

:o :o :o

I'm sorry.  I've been trying to stay away from this thread, but I read this statement yesterday and each time I read this thread, I can't believe no one has commented on it. 

I'm sure you turned out fine and nothing ever happened, but personally, I think it is irresponsible to leave a 5 year old home alone.  I'm sure your parents thought they were doing the right thing, but I've heard in the news more than once,  about something really bad happening to a child who was left home alone/in cars while their parent(s) were working. 

I'm not saying that you are necessarily advocating leaving your children home alone, but by using that as an example of how your parents "got ahead," it implies to me that you believe in the "by any means necessary" philosophy, which I don't believe is always the best thing.

In short, Ecstatic, we'd invent the science of sociology, and rely on the conclusions of that science, if we really wanted to get to the bottom of this.  Thankfully, we don't have to do that; there already is a science of sociology.  We don't have to rely on our intuitions and anecdotal evidence.  We can rely on the findings of intelligent researchers who spend their entire lives studying and thinking about these phenomena.  They deny (1). 

America has an increasingly vocal tradition of rejecting or ignoring scientific findings when they seem to conflict with one's values, but that, I think, is one more American tradition we can do without.

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm a scientist - I especially don't reject fact. But, as a scientist, I also know that statistics do not tell you WHY those people didn't leave poverty. Studies have been done on how many make it out, and how many remain. The conclusions of those studies as to the reasons as to why people remain in poverty are open to a wide variety of explanations.

One of those explanations is that people don't know how to make it out. It's not their fault that they don't know how ... but, it's a fact. If this were not true, you would not be able to look at an X amount of people living in poverty and see all the past mistakes which led them to remain in their situation.

Anyway, I can agree to disagree.

lotus42 - they had no choice, but to leave me. I was sick often, they had zero money for babysitting, they knew absolutely no one in this country, and if they didn't make it to work, they'd be fired ... which means they wouldn't make rent, which means we'd be out on the street. So, it was either chance it or be homeless. As I said, I was an unplanned baby. They did what they could.

Fortunately, I was a pretty serious, mature kid for my age. And I basically sat around reading or sleeping. They gave me little "assignments" to keep me busy, i.e. draw this picture, read this book and draw the character, etc. I knew not to leave the apt., open the door, answer the phone, or play with the stove.

I would not leave a 5 year old child alone in an apartment. But, my circumstances are not theirs fortunately.

Camillus - I'm not saying people have no right to procreate. I'm saying it's not responsible to have more than one child if a person can't afford it.

The problem with that logic, Ecstatic, is that it basically blames the poor for being poor. More than that, it blames women. If you have children and can't afford them, WHATEVER the circumstances, you are condemned. I strongly disagree with that, and I have a hard time believing that you don't.

I don't really understand your reasoning. Certainly, having more children than one can afford is bad planning. Say, you have one child and are already struggling, but are still OK in terms of food, clothes, shelter, some savings. Then, you decide to have a second child. You, now, can no longer make ends meet. Was it such a good, responsible idea to have that second child? Whose fault is it that you decided to have said child? I realize people have accidents, but free condoms plus pulling out plus subsidized pills to your income level from Planned Parenthood pretty much guarantees no accidents. Even pulling out plus the condom plus tracking your fertility is a good way to avoid accidents.

I think many of you are misinterpreting my statement. I'm not blaming the poor when I say that they won't get out if they don't know how. I'm saying they don't know how, it's not their fault that they don't know how, and somehow we should have some measure in place that shows them various directions in which their life could go.

I'm also saying that the people who DO know how to get out ... do it. Which means there are ways out, but obviously not easy ones.

I'm also saying, that, logically, I don't understand why people who are in poor situations in America don't avoid OBVIOUS money drains, i.e. more and more children. One child - OK. But, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... it's just obviously not a good idea. Anyone who can add one plus one can see this. 

Other than that one point, I'm not laying blame. Quite the contrary - I'm saying we need something, some sort of education in place, some program (of course, I'm all for private ones, lol) that will show people how to get out of their situation, and who will help them as they are climbing out in terms of advice, financial knowledge, budgeting, nutrition, frugality, etc.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have that type of knowledge under their belt. And knowledge, as the saying goes, is power.

How do you propose poor people pay to get private education to teach them how not to be poor?

For that matter, how do people get the sex education they need to prevent pregnancy effectively when its not being provided in school? How do people get financial education, to teach them how to manage credit and save effectively? How do people get support through debilitating illnesses or circumstances beyond their control?

What we need are more comprehensive social programs that are free and accessible. That's how you combat poverty. Poverty doesn't go away with blame. Its a social problem. That means all members of the society are responsible. Our government has a responsibility to all the people in the country to ensure a minimum standard of living is met.

Do you have any idea how people in these situations end up having more children than they can afford? Every situation is different and I doubt many of them involve "WEEEE! We are so poor lets have some babies, it'll be fun!"
Some women are forced into pregnancy through rape or abuse. Many couples don't have access to birth control, due to poverty. I know planned parenthood gives out free birth control but they can hardly cover the entire population especially without government funding. Sometimes birth control fails. Even vasectomies are not failsafe. Some religious beliefs deny the use of birth control. Education surrounding sexuality is so poor, people often don't know efficacy rates of particular methods.

The issue with both of these is actually kind of the same. Neither person has the ability to save money. It is so hard to save money in America anymore. It takes so much planning, willpower and education, not to mention.. you know, money.

No, it's actually not.
It is hard if you are living way beyond your means. I have a salary in the mid 20's and that is only the last couple of years. I have zero debt. No school loans, no car payment, nothing. I also have no help from family. I paid for all of my college with no financial aid. I didn't qualify because my father made too much money, eventhough he wasn't helping me. I have a trailer that I live in and Volvo that were both paid for with cash. I have a decent little 401k and a savings account. I shop at discount stores and barter services often. I am planing on buying a house in a couple of years and paying cash. It will not be a large or extravegant house but it will be debt free. My BF and I want to retire by the time we are fiftyfive and on our present course we will be able to. Our dream is to build a nice little house that is completely off the grid to further cut down our expenses.

How do you propose poor people pay to get private education to teach them how not to be poor?

For that matter, how do people get the sex education they need to prevent pregnancy effectively when its not being provided in school? How do people get financial education, to teach them how to manage credit and save effectively? How do people get support through debilitating illnesses or circumstances beyond their control?

I meant private charities or other non-profit organizations as opposed to useless government welfare programs or social education programs. Because I don't see them working. Especially on the sex ed front.

Well, I can certainly tell you that abuse and rape and failure of vasectomies are the minority reasons for having children. Mainly because the poor can't afford vasectomies.

Religion, I agree is a reason. Shame on religion for making people feel bad for taking control of their fertility, and for telling them to avoid birth control because "God will provide."

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out intercourse = pregnancy. That's ALL you need to know in order to avoid pregnancy. If you don't know it when you first have sex, you certainly know it after child number 1. There are other ways of sexual intimacy beyond intercourse. Simple as that.

I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that people with so many children who are struggling, and not really making it, are using condoms AND pulling out. Or are avoiding intercourse and turning to other avenues of intimacy. Because after X amount of kids ... it's not an accident every time. There is just no possible way that a family with 4, 5, 6, kids is having accidents 5 times over.

I'll believe that with a family with one child. But, at 3, 4, 5, 6, kids ... I'm a bit skeptical.

Also, after a person has one accident ... let's be proactive here. They're already struggling, they KNOW they can't afford any more. So, go to the library, get on google, and look up "birth control."

Again, this is my only issue with people and poverty. 3 seconds of pleasure via intercourse are not worth the enormous cost of a child.

Everything else - I agree that people need help in terms of educating them on what's out there, how to get out of their situation, on options, on budgeting, on frugality, on jobs, on degrees, on birth control for those who have not yet figured it out via sex, etc.

hespedal - it's my whole point. They don't know because no one taught them. Which means they won't get out of poverty because they don't know how. I'm all for promoting awareness in this area.