Lazy Women Complains She Has No Food For Her Kids

[emilynghiem]

In what way does Obamacare take money from poor billionaires and redistribute it to drug-abusing moochers? Please explain.

Well taxpayers ARE paying for incarceration and medical care for convicts in prison
who AREN'T required to pay back these costs or work for their expenses.

And for those who do not believe in ACA for Constitutional objections by conscience,
they are facing tax fines to government of 1% of their income if that is higher than 95.00

So taxpayers who believe in paying for their own health care under the free market
ARE being fined for not buying into this plan, on top of already paying health care costs
of people convicted of crimes.

Is that close enough?

People in prisons and jail already got free health care. That is nothing new.

The point being, instead of requiring payment from the people whose crimes PUT others in the hospital, this was being charged to taxpayers; and now with the added mandates, even MORE is being required by govt for taxpayers to pay in.

1. instead of fixing the other problems and freeing up those resources to pay for health care so taxpayers don't have to be compelled to pay additionally with this new bill

2. and instead of the conflicting argument against "involuntary servitude" for the person in prison not being made to work to pay costs but FORCING "involuntary servitude" for law abiding citizens who didn't agree to pay their salary or labor
toward this bill under these conditions, but are compelled to by law or pay fines
out of their incomes; either way if they do not consent to teh business contract
with private insurance, they are forced to take a cut from income from labor.

so why is it okay to force involuntary servitude on the law abiding citizen
who didn't commit any crime, but not okay to force the inmate to work
who did commit a crime that incurs costs to the taxpayers.

why argue that the citizens who are law abiding "aren't taking responsiblity"
but this isn't applied to people committing crimes and/or putting people in the ER.

 

[bripat9643]

I wasn't referring to her specifically.
Leftist social policies is what lead to the horrific out-of-wedlock children rate in the black race.
In the article, there is no judgement, there is no consideration for her role in her own life, and her children. None.
No blame, just handouts. And if the handouts fail - our fault. Look at those poor children.
When in reality - they have no chance. Overwhelming chances are her daughters will be in her shoes in about 12 years. And her son will be dead or in jail.
But let's not think about that.

So what is your realistic solution to the problem?

-Find and remove those gaming the system from the public trough.
-Find the inefficiencies in the administration of social programs and eliminate it.
That means top to bottom.
-Get rid of the dead weight do nothing employees.
-Make managers fully accountable for every dime in their departments.
-Change the way these programs are funded. Right down to every scrap of paper. Every paper clip, etc.
-Eliminate ALL civil service protections for workers. If they screw up, no hiding behind the union thug.

My solution is 100% guaranteed to work: take children away from women who can't afford to support them. That will bring welfare payments to zero real quick. It will probably better for the children as well.

 

[Noomi]

My solution is 100% guaranteed to work: take children away from women who can't afford to support them. That will bring welfare payments to zero real quick. It will probably better for the children as well.

That would be heartless and cruel.

 

[Meathead]

My solution is 100% guaranteed to work: take children away from women who can't afford to support them. That will bring welfare payments to zero real quick. It will probably better for the children as well.

That would be heartless and cruel.

Perhaps, but if they were in any way fit to be mothers, it would certainly give them the incentive they now lack.

 

[Noomi]

Just because someone can't afford to feed their kids does not make them a bad parent.

 

[Billy000]

Just because someone can't afford to feed their kids does not make them a bad parent.

There really is no getting through to these people. They are narrow minded and simple and lack the proper empathy to understand the nuances of poverty.

 

[Barb]

Well taxpayers ARE paying for incarceration and medical care for convicts in prison
who AREN'T required to pay back these costs or work for their expenses.

And for those who do not believe in ACA for Constitutional objections by conscience,
they are facing tax fines to government of 1% of their income if that is higher than 95.00

So taxpayers who believe in paying for their own health care under the free market
ARE being fined for not buying into this plan, on top of already paying health care costs
of people convicted of crimes.

Is that close enough?

People in prisons and jail already got free health care. That is nothing new.

The point being, instead of requiring payment from the people whose crimes PUT others in the hospital, this was being charged to taxpayers; and now with the added mandates, even MORE is being required by govt for taxpayers to pay in.

1. instead of fixing the other problems and freeing up those resources to pay for health care so taxpayers don't have to be compelled to pay additionally with this new bill

2. and instead of the conflicting argument against "involuntary servitude" for the person in prison not being made to work to pay costs but FORCING "involuntary servitude" for law abiding citizens who didn't agree to pay their salary or labor
toward this bill under these conditions, but are compelled to by law or pay fines
out of their incomes; either way if they do not consent to teh business contract
with private insurance, they are forced to take a cut from income from labor.

so why is it okay to force involuntary servitude on the law abiding citizen
who didn't commit any crime, but not okay to force the inmate to work
who did commit a crime that incurs costs to the taxpayers.

why argue that the citizens who are law abiding "aren't taking responsiblity"
but this isn't applied to people committing crimes and/or putting people in the ER.

Honestly, the above is a rather tortured complaint.
Hey, I wanted everyone on Medicaid. It wasn't my idea to cave to the insurance companies and everyone in the right they bought off. We got what we got, and it helps more than it hurts even though it doesn't look anything like I wanted it to either.

 

[Barb]

My solution is 100% guaranteed to work: take children away from women who can't afford to support them. That will bring welfare payments to zero real quick. It will probably better for the children as well.

That would be heartless and cruel.

Giving them an ample attention supply leads them to breed, you know?

 

[Meathead]

Just because someone can't afford to feed their kids does not make them a bad parent.

There really is no getting through to these people. They are narrow minded and simple and lack the proper empathy to understand the nuances of poverty.

There no way of getting through to people who believe they are the arbitrators of morality and they alone understand and can judge empathy, the nuances of poverty and its elimination.

These same people are too narrow-minded to admit that their "solutions" only manage to perpetuate poverty and establish a parasitic underclass. The establishing and championing of underclasses is a sure-fire way of making the US a third-rate/world country. Obama is just the man to do it, and that may well be his legacy.

 

[Barb]

I don't think that word means what you think it does

 

[MrMax]

But really marty. Do you want to cut abortions and the number of kids on SNAP or not? Simple question.

Sterilization would take care of both.

To get on welfare, you should have to be sterilized, or get a monthly shot of birth control when you pick up your check.

 

[Meathead]

I don't think that word means what you think it does

No, I am quite sure I'm right:


parasite  
Use Parasite in a sentence

par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Try a little harder next time.

 

[zeke]

But really marty. Do you want to cut abortions and the number of kids on SNAP or not? Simple question.

Sterilization would take care of both.

To get on welfare, you should have to be sterilized, or get a monthly shot of birth control when you pick up your check.

Sterilized may be a bit much. But long lasting birth control would be a great idea. Along with a DNA sample and social security number of the father of this welfare recipients children. Also any man who has fathered more than one kid and doesn't support that kid should be snipped to keep him from further injury of the society at large. (fatherless children is a big problem.)

No id of the Dad, not willing to take long term birth control, fine. No welfare.

If people themselves do not want to be responsible for their actions that harm society, then society itself should be able to take responsible actions on societies behalf. In the long term it will help the poor out as well.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

My solution is 100% guaranteed to work: take children away from women who can't afford to support them. That will bring welfare payments to zero real quick. It will probably better for the children as well.

That would be heartless and cruel.

Having kids you cant support....now thats cruel.

 

[Iceweasel]

Having kids you cant support....now thats cruel.

Making somebody else pay for it is even more cruel.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sterilization would take care of both.

To get on welfare, you should have to be sterilized, or get a monthly shot of birth control when you pick up your check.

Sterilized may be a bit much. But long lasting birth control would be a great idea. Along with a DNA sample and social security number of the father of this welfare recipients children. Also any man who has fathered more than one kid and doesn't support that kid should be snipped to keep him from further injury of the society at large. (fatherless children is a big problem.)

No id of the Dad, not willing to take long term birth control, fine. No welfare.

If people themselves do not want to be responsible for their actions that harm society, then society itself should be able to take responsible actions on societies behalf. In the long term it will help the poor out as well.

Wait...you said sterilization was a bit much but go on to say it would be just fine for males to be sterilized.
If the slut would keep her legs closed we wouldnt have this problem. Talk about being responsible for actions.....

Two ways to end the cycle. Dont pay more for each kid and watch them magically learn the benefits of birth control. Remove the children from the home and put them in an environment that doesnt encourage irresponsible behavior.

The fathers of these kids dont care and wont pay child support. The women dont care if they do because the gov will pay. There are zero consequences for their irresponsible behavior....why change?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Having kids you cant support....now thats cruel.

Making somebody else pay for it is even more cruel.

You got that right.

 

[MrMax]

To get on welfare, you should have to be sterilized, or get a monthly shot of birth control when you pick up your check.

Sterilized may be a bit much. But long lasting birth control would be a great idea. Along with a DNA sample and social security number of the father of this welfare recipients children. Also any man who has fathered more than one kid and doesn't support that kid should be snipped to keep him from further injury of the society at large. (fatherless children is a big problem.)

No id of the Dad, not willing to take long term birth control, fine. No welfare.

If people themselves do not want to be responsible for their actions that harm society, then society itself should be able to take responsible actions on societies behalf. In the long term it will help the poor out as well.

Wait...you said sterilization was a bit much but go on to say it would be just fine for males to be sterilized.
If the slut would keep her legs closed we wouldnt have this problem. Talk about being responsible for actions.....

Two ways to end the cycle. Dont pay more for each kid and watch them magically learn the benefits of birth control. Remove the children from the home and put them in an environment that doesnt encourage irresponsible behavior.

The fathers of these kids dont care and wont pay child support. The women dont care if they do because the gov will pay. There are zero consequences for their irresponsible behavior....why change?

A monthly shot of birth control for anyone on welfare. They'd probably even be ok with it, because it can't be fun having 4 kids on welfare. Imagine, she'd still be lazy and on welfare, but have no kids, saving the state money.

 

[zeke]

To get on welfare, you should have to be sterilized, or get a monthly shot of birth control when you pick up your check.

Sterilized may be a bit much. But long lasting birth control would be a great idea. Along with a DNA sample and social security number of the father of this welfare recipients children. Also any man who has fathered more than one kid and doesn't support that kid should be snipped to keep him from further injury of the society at large. (fatherless children is a big problem.)

No id of the Dad, not willing to take long term birth control, fine. No welfare.

If people themselves do not want to be responsible for their actions that harm society, then society itself should be able to take responsible actions on societies behalf. In the long term it will help the poor out as well.

Wait...you said sterilization was a bit much but go on to say it would be just fine for males to be sterilized.
If the slut would keep her legs closed we wouldnt have this problem. Talk about being responsible for actions.....

Two ways to end the cycle. Dont pay more for each kid and watch them magically learn the benefits of birth control. Remove the children from the home and put them in an environment that doesnt encourage irresponsible behavior.

The fathers of these kids dont care and wont pay child support. The women dont care if they do because the gov will pay. There are zero consequences for their irresponsible behavior....why change?

Hey you seem to be stupid and sexist. Bad combination.

Yea cut the dudes dick off for all I care. There are men out there sperm donating to several women at a time. Fathering children with numerous women. Some men brag about the number of children they have and don't support.

Yea cut their dicks off. Perform hysterectomies after the last welfare baby is born to the women. Do what ever it takes to break the cycle.

And you know what. With DNA and a Social Security number, eventually a man can be made to pay for some of his neglect of not supporting his children. He will file a tax return someday.

But just blame it on the "slut." It's what sexists do.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Considering the newly defined work week as 30 hrs by Obamacare, 2 jobs would sound about right ... Now had most of you lame brains stayed out of it, a single 40 hr a week job with 20 hrs of overtime would be much more lucrative ...

She can get all the jobs in life she wants, unless she has determination(not likely from this article / perspective of her life) or a better education she will always be stuck in poverty. She will have to be willing to make sacrifices and struggle to either get and education / skill or we will do what, take care of her and her children for till they start their own cycle of social dependance totally devoid of mother??

Until responsibility and self respect is learned this will always be a product of our current society. I mean really no one will even broach the subject to self respect here?? I work, take care of a family(raised a stepson that was not mine), pay taxes, own property, and have no problem accepting and solving my own problems in life.

So when you tell me this woman and her children need to be taken care of, why is she less capable of caring for herself than I am for me?? At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own actions, those with favorable actions usually have an easier time in society, those with unfavorable actions, well the misery they endure is of their own making and with perseverance, conviction in doing the right thing and hard work they could have a much easier path in life.

You are a fucking imbecile. I really don't like to insult people but God DAMN, man.

The woman had to leave her kids in the car to go to a job interview. She had to leave her kids in the car because she couldn't take them into the job interview with her. She had to leave her kids in the car because she didn't have anyone to ask for help. She had to leave her kids in the car to try to get a job so that she could take of her kids.

And you say that she is being irresponsible. FUCK YOU.

What about the fucker that called the cops? Did the brainiac ever think to just watch the kids to make sure they were okay? Wait for the driver of the vehicle to come back? Ask them, "Hey, did you know you left your kids in the car?" And what about the cops? Were they being good citizens by arresting her, ruining her chances of getting that job, and putting her kids in a loveless foster home?

What the fuck is wrong with you people that you would hate a woman for doing the only thing that she can do to try to get back on her feet?

You moronic fuck, I would not leave my unattended dog in the car..... get a fucking clue in life!!