Lazy Women Complains She Has No Food For Her Kids

[martybegan]

here's your smaller, less intrusive government.

If you want government not to be intrusive, be able to support yourself. People who can feed and clothe their own kids won't feel the governments influence on them at all.

Your preferred option of rewarding bad behavior is the feel good smarmy bullshit that leads to poverty cycles never being ended.

“Poverty is an anomaly to the rich. They cannot understand why the poor when hungry do not simply ring the bell”

That isn't even remotely connected to what I am talking about. Once again your reading comprehension skills lie some where between "mushroom" and "amoebae"

 

[Ame®icano]

Computer is racist.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Are you willing to pay for those institutions? And you do realize that orphanages have never provided a very good outcome for those kids raised in that type of environment, right?

Given a choice between handouts with no strings, and an institutionalized system that holds people accountable for their actions I'll take the latter. I'd also add that once a person is in the system and they have a kid being taken care of, a 2nd kid is a crime. I wouldn't force the mother to abort the kid, but she's gonna get a jail term out of it. same as dad if this is his second or more trip around the paternity pole.

and the outcomes we are getting with the current system are better how?

here's your smaller, less intrusive government.

They're only small government when it is against improving our infrastructure, science, r&D or education. Anything that helps the poor and middle class = a big fuck you within the republican mind.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So what is your realistic solution to the problem?

To find a solution you must first define the causation. No one is willing to do that.
The leftist policies of the late 1950's-early 90's all but destroyed the black race. There is no argument to that. None.

There is no correlation to that. None.

See here folks...this is why I don't respond to ClosedCaption..same reason as I don't respond to TruthDontMatter...for him to reply with the above answer is either out of amazing blind ignorance, or is foolishly willing to portray a lie and dumb enough to think anyone believes it.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

well you love peoples misfortune? I'll jump in with my own then!!Cannot wait for a tornado to wipe out a bunch entire white trash trailer parks, as the trash who should have provided a safer place for their family and kids to live. And its the season now or that, and when they beg for disaster relief , just tell em to take responsibility or their own families and we hope they learn their lesson for next time.

First Rep I gave out around here and it had to be to some moron for such stupid shit!!

 

[auditor0007]

They don't have to starve, but they don't have to remain with mommy either. Put them in institutions and have mommy AND Daddy work in mandatory programs until they can support the kids themselves.

Are you willing to pay for those institutions? And you do realize that orphanages have never provided a very good outcome for those kids raised in that type of environment, right?

There are an awful lot of famous people who were raised in orphanages.
History's Famous Orphans - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

An anecdotal story here and there doesn't change facts. Cons constantly try to use anecdotal stories as evidence when making an argument on just about anything.

 

[Barb]

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?

To find a solution you must first define the causation. No one is willing to do that.
The leftist policies of the late 1950's-early 90's all but destroyed the black race. There is no argument to that. None.
And what are we doing about it today? We are going right back to the same policies that started it all in the first place. Government handouts with no strings attached.
Solutions??
Too much to type here...but generally speaking, nothing will fix the problem without addressing the causations...which are plenty.
1) Amoral culture
2) Feeling of entitlement
3) Lack of self responsibility
4) Dependency on others
5) Culture that glorifies violence and anti-social behavior
6) Short sided social policies

I could go on

Do you live in a cave? [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Poverty-Discrimination-Bradley-Schiller/dp/0131889699]Amazon.com: The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination (9780131889699): Bradley R Schiller: Books[/ame]

Central to my study of the socioeconomic inequality caused by the policies of the Reagan Administration, “Economics of Poverty & Discrimination” studied the genesis of discrimination, the social characteristics of poverty in the United States, wealth distribution based on racial, social, gender, and economic status discrimination contributes to the situations that make poverty more likely. The course also examined the potential for the improvement of equality through policy initiatives, and the probable benefits for society in doing so. The Schiller text presented a thoroughly inclusive survey of the aspects of poverty and discrimination, and this comprehensive approach provided an understanding of the magnitude, complexity, and interconnectedness of the topics presented than one taken from a purely economic, political, social, or other concentrated outlook could have.

I beg to differ

The US media started reinforcing racial stereotypes during Civil Rights gains made by black Americans in the 1960s and 1970s that decreased the states ability to discriminate in application of welfare policies, and again during the recession of 1982-1983. After ignoring poverty suffered in black communities throughout US history, the poverty images the media published the 1960's and later in the 1980's disproportionately depicted black faces. However, unlike the positive stories accompanying images of white poverty, black people were overwhelmingly connected to negative news coverage and commentary.

Gilens touched, but did not expand upon, an important generational component of the suspicion that many on welfare not only do not need to be because of youth and health but also willfully shirk the responsibility to support themselves. Of several people quoted in relation to indexing welfare payment levels to costs of living, one was elderly, and another was a middle-aged high school drop out. The labor market has changed significantly in opportunity for people of little educational attainments since these people started out in life, and the high paying blue-collar jobs of their beginnings no longer exist. Generational differences are important in relation to racial stereotypes because assumptions are made regarding poor peoples character using the rubric of success equaling virtue. If one is not successful, one must not be virtuous. This relates to a component of white America’s suspicion of welfare recipients in general and black Americans in particular having to do with the idea that American society is already equitable, and that our economic system offers an equal chance to succeed for all who really put forth the effort to do so. It is important to note that if opportunity for gainful employment is still restricted by discrimination, that condition is exacerbated by lowered opportunity overall that makes competition for even low paid employment severe.

The idea that black American’s have a much looser connection to the work ethic may also stem from the fact that the poor have a looser connection to the labor market, and that images of poverty have reinforced the idea that black Americans are the majority of welfare recipients. The second and third assumptions would seem to buttress the first, until one takes into consideration that the third is wholly false, and the second is both causal of poverty and caused by poverty and discrimination rather than the result of a lack of desire to work.

The quoted is me, if you need a bibliography I'll provide it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you want government not to be intrusive, be able to support yourself. People who can feed and clothe their own kids won't feel the governments influence on them at all.

Your preferred option of rewarding bad behavior is the feel good smarmy bullshit that leads to poverty cycles never being ended.

“Poverty is an anomaly to the rich. They cannot understand why the poor when hungry do not simply ring the bell”

That isn't even remotely connected to what I am talking about. Once again your reading comprehension skills lie some where between "mushroom" and "amoebae"

"just support yourself"

Man...why didnt anyone think of that?

 

[martybegan]

Given a choice between handouts with no strings, and an institutionalized system that holds people accountable for their actions I'll take the latter. I'd also add that once a person is in the system and they have a kid being taken care of, a 2nd kid is a crime. I wouldn't force the mother to abort the kid, but she's gonna get a jail term out of it. same as dad if this is his second or more trip around the paternity pole.

and the outcomes we are getting with the current system are better how?

here's your smaller, less intrusive government.

They're only small government when it is against improving our infrastructure, science, r&D or education. Anything that helps the poor and middle class = a big fuck you within the republican mind.

My concept would result in smaller government because it wouldn't allow a person to just waste their life and their kids' lives on government handouts. It would be designed to get them out, working, and supporting themselves, and wouldn't result in a bunch of government dependent drones looking for their next handout.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

To find a solution you must first define the causation. No one is willing to do that.
The leftist policies of the late 1950's-early 90's all but destroyed the black race. There is no argument to that. None.
And what are we doing about it today? We are going right back to the same policies that started it all in the first place. Government handouts with no strings attached.
Solutions??
Too much to type here...but generally speaking, nothing will fix the problem without addressing the causations...which are plenty.
1) Amoral culture
2) Feeling of entitlement
3) Lack of self responsibility
4) Dependency on others
5) Culture that glorifies violence and anti-social behavior
6) Short sided social policies

I could go on

You make an interesting assumption; it's the same assumption all cons make, but you completely ignore the opposing view that had it not been for all of these programs, the poor in this country would actually be in much worse shape and we would have ghettos comparable to those in places like India.

 

[AceRothstein]

Somebody should get her some boot straps so she can lift herself up with them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

To find a solution you must first define the causation. No one is willing to do that.
The leftist policies of the late 1950's-early 90's all but destroyed the black race. There is no argument to that. None.

There is no correlation to that. None.

See here folks...this is why I don't respond to ClosedCaption..same reason as I don't respond to TruthDontMatter...for him to reply with the above answer is either out of amazing blind ignorance, or is foolishly willing to portray a lie and dumb enough to think anyone believes it.

Well, you could always prove me to be an idiot through actions (like evidence) instead of trying to convince everyone I am through words.

But a liar cannot provide proof a liar will react with deflective anger...like you just did.

Now, where is the correlation that thats true. Politifact says you're wrong. I bet you want proof dont you Capt Irony?

 

[martybegan]

“Poverty is an anomaly to the rich. They cannot understand why the poor when hungry do not simply ring the bell”

That isn't even remotely connected to what I am talking about. Once again your reading comprehension skills lie some where between "mushroom" and "amoebae"

"just support yourself"

Man...why didnt anyone think of that?

Or, how about not having kids when you cant support them? My version leaves a safety net in place, its just one with conditions and requirements that you stop having more kids if you can't support one or yourself.

Or how about forcing absent daddy to either support the kid or work as if you are supporting the kid? Fathering a child should result in responsibility, and currently we just don't seem able to enforce that.

 

[Wake]

If she owns even a little land, she can buy a pack of carrot seeds for $0.20. Each pack has over 100 seeds in it. If you care for your crops you can reap a good harvest and blanch/store the remainder in the freezer. Garden food is cheaper and healthier than much of the processed food you find in the store.

 

[Barb]

Given a choice between handouts with no strings, and an institutionalized system that holds people accountable for their actions I'll take the latter. I'd also add that once a person is in the system and they have a kid being taken care of, a 2nd kid is a crime. I wouldn't force the mother to abort the kid, but she's gonna get a jail term out of it. same as dad if this is his second or more trip around the paternity pole.

and the outcomes we are getting with the current system are better how?

here's your smaller, less intrusive government.

If you want government not to be intrusive, be able to support yourself. People who can feed and clothe their own kids won't feel the governments influence on them at all.

Your preferred option of rewarding bad behavior is the feel good smarmy bullshit that leads to poverty cycles never being ended.

See, I would agree, if applied to a more monied population that insisted on less oversight, more rewards, and a bigger cushion.

Rewarding bad behavior indeed.

you tool.

 

[martybegan]

here's your smaller, less intrusive government.

If you want government not to be intrusive, be able to support yourself. People who can feed and clothe their own kids won't feel the governments influence on them at all.

Your preferred option of rewarding bad behavior is the feel good smarmy bullshit that leads to poverty cycles never being ended.

See, I would agree, if applied to a more monied population that insisted on less oversight, more rewards, and a bigger cushion.

Rewarding bad behavior indeed.

you tool.

I don't see some CEO wasting his life away on government handouts, or my taxes going to perpetuate said lifestyle. I perpetuate it by buying a product or service from his company and getting something of value out of it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I could go on

You make an interesting assumption; it's the same assumption all cons make, but you completely ignore the opposing view that had it not been for all of these programs, the poor in this country would actually be in much worse shape and we would have ghettos comparable to those in places like India.[/QUOTE]

We HAD GHETTOS...

 

[Wake]

And what the hey. The latter part of the article with Camilla Lewis has her saying her son can't eat processed food because of a stomach disorder. SO, she keeps buying processed food... When I was dirt poor I'd buy super cheap bags of dried lentils, beans, and brown rice. Poor people in 3rd world countries like Africa would kill for what America's poor have. I saw a photo of a little African girl with just a rag around her little hips, a bloated, hungry belly, and neither hope nor opportunity for a good future.

We Americans need to count the many blessings we have, and be damned grateful for them. That, and buy healthy, cheap staples like beans and lentils. You don't need processed food and stuff like that to live. You'll feel better, too, with a nice bowl of simple brown rice with a little dash of pepper. People should tighten their belts and buy only what they need; live below your means as much as you can and save your money!

 

[martybegan]

So what is your realistic solution to the problem?

To find a solution you must first define the causation. No one is willing to do that.
The leftist policies of the late 1950's-early 90's all but destroyed the black race. There is no argument to that. None.
And what are we doing about it today? We are going right back to the same policies that started it all in the first place. Government handouts with no strings attached.
Solutions??
Too much to type here...but generally speaking, nothing will fix the problem without addressing the causations...which are plenty.
1) Amoral culture
2) Feeling of entitlement
3) Lack of self responsibility
4) Dependency on others
5) Culture that glorifies violence and anti-social behavior
6) Short sided social policies

I could go on

You make an interesting assumption; it's the same assumption all cons make, but you completely ignore the opposing view that had it not been for all of these programs, the poor in this country would actually be in much worse shape and we would have ghettos comparable to those in places like India.

We don't have the population density for that to happen, and we have enough wealth that charities would be able to take up the slack for those who wouldn't be able to help themselves. what we wouldn't have is whole masses of our poorer population EXPECTING that the government will take care of them in perpetuity regardless of how many poor choices they make.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That isn't even remotely connected to what I am talking about. Once again your reading comprehension skills lie some where between "mushroom" and "amoebae"

"just support yourself"

Man...why didnt anyone think of that?

Or, how about not having kids when you cant support them? My version leaves a safety net in place, its just one with conditions and requirements that you stop having more kids if you can't support one or yourself.

Or how about forcing absent daddy to either support the kid or work as if you are supporting the kid? Fathering a child should result in responsibility, and currently we just don't seem able to enforce that.

Wow, you're on a roll today