Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #21
You're right of course. Those low life, low achieving children would be much better off dying in the gutter rather than receive any largess from the GREATEST NARTION ON EARTH!!!! U S A! U S A! U S A!You're right of course. Children living in poverty deserve to starve because the circumstances they were born into. Had those children shown some initiative, they would have willed themselves to be born into a Conservative family earning enough to send them to Bob Jones University when they graduate from home school.Why aren't wages high enough to sustain a family?
If you wring your hands over food stamps, perhaps more consideration toward a living wage standard might make sense.
Either way, those getting a living wage or a wage higher than the skills they have are worth would be getting something they didn't earn. The welfare they get isn't earned and the wage based on existence rather than skills is the same.
If you wring your hands over someone with low skills making an equivalent level low wage, perhaps you can open YOUR wallet and buy their groceries, pay their power bill, and fund their healthcare premiums. .
My children don't deserve to do with less because some parent isn't getting the job done. What makes you think that kids I didn't help create deserve something that causes me to have less to give to the ones I did?
Seems you don't understand the meaning of the word largess. It involves a benevolent demeanor or charity. Hate to break it to you but the government taking it from one in order to do what you want isn't either one. Mandates don't equate to charity or compassion as they come from a willful giver not by a mandated taker.