Dana7360
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2014
- 15,147
- 13,596
Never said a word about punishing anyone. However, I did state--if the irresponsible parent, who receives public assistance and is STILL unable to provide 3 squares for their children, their children should be removed from their care and offered for adoption--there are lines of people wishing to LOVE & CARE for a child and they would do it without public assistance. We are NOT a communist nation--no matter how much you wish it to be so.Kind of like feeding the bears in Yellowstone--that is cruelty, because you do not teach self sufficiency which is what you communists lack. Have you never heard the old saw about giving a man a fish and feeding him for a day as opposed to teaching him to fish and feeding him forever? Wake up moron.presence of a humanity gene
So I guess you're ok with punishing kids because their parents aren't sufficiently self sufficient.
It already happens in many cases, but it's often foster care unless the courts negate parental rights. And guess what happens with foster care? The state pays foster parents a fee to offset the cost of caring for the child. That's still less costly than caring for children in the orphanages of the past where children could be abused.
The thing is, the conversation isn't about people who receive public assistance and still can't provide food for their kids.
The conversation is about Idaho refusing funds for day care for low income parents.
If the parents can't go to work because they have no day care, then the parents go on public assistance.
It's much more logical to provide that day care so the parent can go to work so they don't have to go on public assistance.
Yes, the people against this don't have a clue what logic is so they change the subject. As the person you replied to did.