Georgia has discovered the cure for poverty!

[PoliticalChic]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

Actually, I think you've made a pretty good attempt at analysis....but far too many hypotheticals.

1. Begin here: let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Before Liberals took over welfare/charity....no one was starving.



2. There are many reasons whey government welfare is an abject failure.
From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.




3. While this statement of yours is a cornerstone of Liberal policy....it has been proven to be totally false.
"The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. "


The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was a great success.
Poverty fell, welfare recipients worked, and the plan was a success....until Obama torpedoed it.

"....liberals proclaimed that the bill would slash the incomes of one fifth of American families with children and push 2.6 million people into poverty. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.) famously predicted the bill would leave children scavenging in the streets, “sleeping on grates, picked up in the morning frozen.” In reality, welfare reform cut welfare caseloads by over 50 percent. Employment of the least skilled single mothers surged, and the poverty rates of black children and single-parent families rapidly dropped to historic lows. Doomsday prophets were discredited, and welfare reform has remained enduringly popular."
Welfare Reform: Two Decades of Success




4. But...you indirectly hit on a problem with ending government welfare: Liberal tax policy would obviate getting a job....and that is on purpose.

- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

Taking a job and giving up welfare would result in a tax rate of almost 73%.
If you have an interest, I will explain exactly how that occurs.

 

[koshergrl]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

This is great!

Now all that Georgia needs to do is start a "Pay 'em enough that they don't need food stamps" program!

They will get paid enough if they work enough. That's how that works.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

 

[koshergrl]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

They aren't smart and they have vices because our government teaches them that they don't need to learn or try to control themselves.

People are NOT that stupid. You have a much lower opinion of people on welfare than I do. I know very well that hunger is a powerful motivation. So is homelessness. When there is nobody to pay for your shit, trust me, you will scramble and find a way.

Or, if you can't, you lose the privilege of living in society. It's really a very basic decision that people have to make. And when they make it, they live with the consequences. And yes, people can and do have bad luck, and as a society, we should be compassionate towards those people, and help them.

But our SOCIETY is something separate from our GOVERNMENT. You let the society determine how much help and in what form it will shoulder for those who cannot or will not pay their own way. Let each town deal with their own, in their own way. Whether through the churches, or as individuals, or whatever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, we do eat "this shit" every day.

You know why? Because we fucking work for a living, we don't depend on foodstamps, and because we work, we go for cheap, easy meals. Limited variety, limited quantity.

That's what working people have to do.

Exactly. We keep our grocery bill down because we have to pay cash for our groceries. We turn our thermostat down in the winter instead of opening up the window like the HUD house next door to me. Instead of buying things just because we have some cash in our pockets, we avoid doing that so we can invest some of our money for the future or retirement. We don't go to the doctor every time we catch a cold or have a cough. We go only if we have to really see a doctor. We don't have children we can't afford. We limit our family size according to our income instead of our desires.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

This is great!

Now all that Georgia needs to do is start a "Pay 'em enough that they don't need food stamps" program!

That's not the responsibility of the state, that's the responsibility of the individual. If you don't make enough money, YOU do something about it. Don't expect government to force people to pay you more than your labor is worth.

 

[WEATHER53]

Nobody ever said poor people get a place of their very own
Share for a while and work yourself into better living circumstances

 

[Flopper]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

it is the right wing, that is against, both, the cost of an ounce of prevention and the cost of a pound of cure; no wonder, the right wing has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

 

[WEATHER53]

Yeah I am heartbroken over poor decision makers
I should be forced to remedy them at my own expense
Oops...I forgot....I already am footing the bill

 

[Vandalshandle]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

Children, though innocent of the situation surrounding their birth, should be neglected, and ignored by the government, according to the Right, because their parents made bad decisions. I have heard this argument all of my life.

 

[WEATHER53]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

Children, though innocent of the situation surrounding their birth, should be neglected, and ignored by the government, according to the Right, because their parents made bad decisions. I have heard this argument all of my life.

And what you have heard all your life is still true. The responsibility for innocents is on those who produced them, no one else

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

"Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding."


OMG!!!!


You must be one of the dumbest posters around....a Liberal government school grad, huh?


"What has historically been defined as "poverty," nationally or internationally, no longer exists in the United States, says economist Walter Williams.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 2009 poverty guideline was $22,000 for an urban four-person family. In 2009, having income less than that, 15 percent or 40 million Americans were classified as poor, but there's something unique about those "poor" people not seen anywhere else in the world. Robert Rector, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, presents data collected from several government sources in a report titled "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the 'Plague' of Poverty in America":

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).

Also:

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone's income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth, explains Williams."

Source: Walter Williams, "Where Best To Be Poor," Jewish World Review, June 30, 2010.

For text:

Walter Williams



Gads, you're a moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

Children, though innocent of the situation surrounding their birth, should be neglected, and ignored by the government, according to the Right, because their parents made bad decisions. I have heard this argument all of my life.

Another Liberal moron.....or is that redundant.

 

[koshergrl]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

Nope, not great options for the kids.

What makes you think it's the job of the government to make life better for people? I would like my life made better, too. In fact, I just hosted an adult son (and his family) in my household. Someone needs to give ME a bigger, better house and about $900 in free food.

Is anybody going to do that? Fuck no. Because I work for a living, and I make a tolerable wage. I accept this and my responsibility.

What I don't accept is that people who refuse to work live better than we do. The children of drug addicted sociopaths have a higher standard living than my kids. That makes me fucking angry, and it also makes me feel a lot less inclined to be super compassionate.

Guess what else? I just saw an 18 year old girl. She was the daughter of a couple of losers who were in the system for all her life...who received snap, and housing, and money..who eventually lost their kids into the foster system.

So with all that assistance *for the kids* you would think she should be doing okay, right?

No, she's homeless, living in a car with some guy equally clueless, who is also a life long dependent of the state. They're having a baby in August.

That's what the state teaches people to be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Children, though innocent of the situation surrounding their birth, should be neglected, and ignored by the government, according to the Right, because their parents made bad decisions. I have heard this argument all of my life.

If those children are forever our liability, then how would one go about reducing or eliminating poverty?

If Trump and the Republicans announced that in 2022, the government will no longer provide for children--instead, take them away for adoption, you could cut the poverty child rate by more than half.

 

[koshergrl]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Gingrich offered this solution:

Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190).

Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The answer is they get a roommate or share a house
If you cannot afford to live on your own by yourself then you find another party to share with you and reducethe expenses
You Don't Demand that the rest of us pay for you so that you can have a place all to yourself. That solitude is a result of achievement and not an entitlement

And they could live in a friends garage, move in with elderly parents, or maybe just live under a bridge, all just great options for the kids. Most families living on government subsidies, are already living in rather cramped surrounding.

Children, though innocent of the situation surrounding their birth, should be neglected, and ignored by the government, according to the Right, because their parents made bad decisions. I have heard this argument all of my life.

No, we should personally step up and teach those families how to make it.

Without the government dictating to us what we are allowed to do, what we are allowed to say to them, how we are allowed to house them, what we are allowed to feed them.

What that looks like is poor houses and churches (who already take a lot of this burden). People should be ashamed in their communities when they are unable to care for their families. Their children should be raised by other people, while the parents end up in prison, or mental institutions, or dead in the street depending on their issues. And thus the chain is broken.

I have a friend whose mom was removed from her family as an infant and placed in an orphanage...that's where wards of the state used to go, and wards of the state were the children of people who were not equipped, for whatever reason, to raise kids. They might be alcoholics, or violent, criminal, or whatever. She didn't know her parents, she got married at 17...and she came with her husband to a tiny town in Oregon. Where she raised a nice family and worked for decades as the only cafeteria employee at the school.

Her life was infinitely better than it would have been if she had remained with her parents (or been placed in substandard foster care) and supplemented with $$ and housing and snap to continue to live a wildly dysfunctional life with no consequences. Raise the bar a little. People who are living under a bridge don't need money. They need to have their children taken from them, and they need to either go to prison or into an institution. They have officially failed as human beings and we should not and cannot just keep slapping them back into maintstream society and throw money at them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody ever said poor people get a place of their very own
Share for a while and work yourself into better living circumstances

Maybe that might be a good productive project for these so-caring liberals. We have organizations that used to match up people for car pooling for work to save on gasoline. Why can't some liberal do the same for the so-called poor.

That's right, some liberal should come up with 1-800-LOW-LIFE. Match those people in poverty together under one roof so they don't need as much from us taxpayers.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody ever said poor people get a place of their very own
Share for a while and work yourself into better living circumstances

Maybe that might be a good productive project for these so-caring liberals. We have organizations that used to match up people for car pooling for work to save on gasoline. Why can't some liberal do the same for the so-called poor.

That's right, some liberal should come up with 1-800-LOW-LIFE. Match those people in poverty together under one roof so they don't need as much from us taxpayers.

Poor houses.

Miserable shelters...

Definitely provided an incentive to take care of yourself and your own.

 

[Flopper]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,

• Biological Urges
• Desire to pass on family name, lineage, history
• Seeking life fulfillment through children
• Societal pressure to start a family
• Feeling that children is the next step in their relationship
• Hope that children will help provide for them now or at the end of life
• Status conferred by fatherhood and motherhood
• Trying to fix/grow a relationship with a significant other
• And of course, simply an accident

Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.

Liberals see the root cause of poverty is the upbringing of children, relationship with parents, qualify of education, guidance and role modeling. For liberals one of the main purposes of social welfare is two improve the environment for children in poverty. In the past taking food off the table and having Mom working instead taking care of the kids has not produce responsible productive adults and it is not likely to in the future.