Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact is the vast majority of people receiving social welfare services are either disabled, elderly, or children. Cutting social services will not put them to work. It will just make life harder for the poor and better the rich.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.The answer is they get a roommate or share a houseLet'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..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
- The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.
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%?
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
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.
class envy you are not too poor or too rich, to get a bailout?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
Thank goodness we have a First World economy where socialism bails out capitalism, on a well regulated basis.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.The answer is they get a roommate or share a houseLet'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..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
- The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.
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%?
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
"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.
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.
The people who don't give a rats ass are the blood relative people who neglect them and not the people who don't want to pay for themChildren, 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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
They create victims, then use them to justify victimizing someone else.The people who don't give a rats ass are the blood relative people who neglect them and not the people who don't want to pay for themChildren, 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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
You are a shining example of liberal socialism responsibility reassignment
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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
Poor houses.
Miserable shelters...
Definitely provided an incentive to take care of yourself and your own.
Move them to Chicago. Chances are another black will gun them down within a few months.The only cure for low IQ "people of color" poverty is mandatory sterilization. There are exceptions and they should be allowed to have drunk sex.
Amazing and pretty hard to discover and root out but Trump got it started thank goodnessThey create victims, then use them to justify victimizing someone else.The people who don't give a rats ass are the blood relative people who neglect them and not the people who don't want to pay for themChildren, 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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
You are a shining example of liberal socialism responsibility reassignment
People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,
Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.
- 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
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.
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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
Well, you insulted my intelligence, anyway, with your asinine plan to end poverty, by letting kids go hungry. Oh, well...
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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
Well, you insulted my intelligence, anyway, with your asinine plan to end poverty, by letting kids go hungry. Oh, well...
I never said that. What I said is if the parent is not responsible enough to provide for a child, that child should be removed from the home and put up for adoption. If we did it that way, it would take away the incentive for poor people having more poor children.
Would you approve of your neighbor allowing his dog to have puppies just so he could put them in the microwave and torture them? If not, why would you approve of us giving incentives for poor people to create more poor children?
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.
...and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
Well, you insulted my intelligence, anyway, with your asinine plan to end poverty, by letting kids go hungry. Oh, well...
I never said that. What I said is if the parent is not responsible enough to provide for a child, that child should be removed from the home and put up for adoption. If we did it that way, it would take away the incentive for poor people having more poor children.
Would you approve of your neighbor allowing his dog to have puppies just so he could put them in the microwave and torture them? If not, why would you approve of us giving incentives for poor people to create more poor children?
I'm not going through all that again. I responded to the adoption thing in post 152 and 157, for which you offered no rebuttal.
In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.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.
This guy VANDALSHANDLE is as phony as they come. Typical liberal. He is in fact indifferent to the plight of the poor. It is all about asserting his virtue publicly. What they never get is that smart people understand his position is neither virtuous nor beneficial to the helpless creatures on whose behalf they claim to advocate and despise him for it. And dumb people are indifferent to his virtue, but they sense his condescension and hate him for it....and this is the reason that I left the Republican party back in 2004, after voting R since Ford. The party has no compassion for innocents, and not even a sense of moral responsibility for the weakest American citizens. As far as the Right is concerned, it is all about themselves, not their fellow countryman. And please don't insult my intelligence by rationalizing that this neglect of children is going to end poverty. And, I have already shredded your "adoption" suggestion. You are not going to find anybody who is going to adopt a 12 year old ghetto kid. Nor is it an economic alternative to providing limited food on a temporary basis. I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and said that you don't give a rat's ass about kids, like Weather53 did.
If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
Well, you insulted my intelligence, anyway, with your asinine plan to end poverty, by letting kids go hungry. Oh, well...
I never said that. What I said is if the parent is not responsible enough to provide for a child, that child should be removed from the home and put up for adoption. If we did it that way, it would take away the incentive for poor people having more poor children.
Would you approve of your neighbor allowing his dog to have puppies just so he could put them in the microwave and torture them? If not, why would you approve of us giving incentives for poor people to create more poor children?
I'm not going through all that again. I responded to the adoption thing in post 152 and 157, for which you offered no rebuttal.
Good choice on your part.
In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.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.
This guy VANDALSHANDLE is as phony as they come. Typical liberal. He is in fact indifferent to the plight of the poor. It is all about asserting his virtue publicly. What they never get is that smart people understand his position is neither virtuous nor beneficial to the helpless creatures on whose behalf they claim to advocate and despise him for it. And dumb people are indifferent to his virtue, but they sense his condescension and hate him for it.If you don't take any steps towards ending child poverty, then it's never going to end, and in fact, will only get worse.
The key to ending poverty children is poverty people not having them in the first place. But as long as we continue to provide for them, lowlifes will keep having more poverty children.
In an effort to have a painless solution, you only make matters worse. In other words, if we started a program to end government support for children in poverty 30 years ago, do you think we would have as many of them as we do today?
I understand you can't answer that question honestly with me, but answer it honestly for yourself.
Moral responsibility doesn't come from government--it comes from individuals themselves.
Well, you insulted my intelligence, anyway, with your asinine plan to end poverty, by letting kids go hungry. Oh, well...
I never said that. What I said is if the parent is not responsible enough to provide for a child, that child should be removed from the home and put up for adoption. If we did it that way, it would take away the incentive for poor people having more poor children.
Would you approve of your neighbor allowing his dog to have puppies just so he could put them in the microwave and torture them? If not, why would you approve of us giving incentives for poor people to create more poor children?
I'm not going through all that again. I responded to the adoption thing in post 152 and 157, for which you offered no rebuttal.
Good choice on your part.
