When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[jknowgood]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

If you support abortion I can determine you're morals.

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.

Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?

Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.

 

[chikenwing]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

We don't ,and you repeating this blatant lie,just makes you look more the idiot that you are.
Who taught you to lie like this?

 

[irosie91]

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

 

[irosie91]

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.

If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.

The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.

we would have no schools

 

[irosie91]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Deflection.

Not everyone can cook well. How do you force someone to learn how to be a frugal cook? If beef-a-roni or tuna helper or spaghetti-O's or even potato chips and a snickers is all the child eats, then the child isn't starving. That is the state's interest. Not what or how the kid is eating, but is the kid eating.

Eating that shit at home, in addition to the two free meals a day at school(assuming they go regularly) is what has lead to the obesity epidemic that is much more damaging than a little hunger ever was.

??? food stamps are restricted to "snickers" and coca cola? WRONG!!!! ------one can buy brown rice, and even broccoli. I, truly believe, that childen should be taught
how to eat well on the stipend in school. -----It can be done---
it is a preparation for adulthood. Everyone should know how to reasonably sustain himself and his kids

 

[Billy000]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

So what choice do the kids have?

That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.

Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?

You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.

Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?

 

[irosie91]

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

Are you fucking kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.

Really? Have ever thought about opening a cook book?
I can take a 7 lb broiler chicken and make 5 meals to feed four people for three days.
Canned veggies are inexpensive. As are fresh fruits. A bunch of bananas can be had for under $2....
Don't hand me this nonsense. Because it is a bunch of lousy excuses.
BTW, clipping coupons is a rather lucrative activity. Often we save in excess of $40 per week off of our normal $110 per week grocery bill. With a little more effort we could boost that even higher.
We shop where ever the deals are. Grocery stores always have deals and coupons....Last Saturday we bought 6 cans of Campbell's soup and got three of them free. Coupon....
So your alarmist snarky comments are dismissed as horseshit.

An onion, a pound of beans, two eggs, some cornmeal, and a handful of mustard greens that can be grown virtually anywhere makes enough food for 6.

not everyone has space or means to GROW ANYTHING at all-----there are homeless or virtually homeless people out there---------btw-----where do you get soil in cities? BUY IT AT $5 for ten pounds?

 

[Conservative65]

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

So what choice do the kids have?

That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.

Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?

You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.

Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?

Let's say you provide a few examples of those reasons instead of saying what MIGHT happen.

 

[Conservative65]

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.

If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.

The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.

we would have no schools

Why do you say we would have no schools?

 

[Conservative65]

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

 

[irosie91]

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

 

[Conservative65]

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

 

[irosie91]

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

 

[Billy000]

So what choice do the kids have?

That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.

Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?

You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.

Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?

Let's say you provide a few examples of those reasons instead of saying what MIGHT happen.

Dude you're missing the point. How it would happen is not the point. I am not saying it has any likelihood of happening I'm just stating if you lost your kids for whatever reason, wouldn't you prefer it they were financially taken care of state or not?

 

[chikenwing]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

Do you think those receiving handouts to feed the kids they should be feeding give a fuck that the money had to be taken from someone else that earned it before it could be handed to them as long as they get it?

See? Nothing but bitterness that these children might cost them something. They go balls to the wall to protect the unborn but would just as soon drop kick them into the garbage dump than spend a dime to feed them after their birth.

More bull shit from world class bull shitters,dragging out this tired old lie.
But even if this was true,better than just killing them like the the OP would rather do

 

[ClosedCaption]

Everybody has one opinion when they dont need something and another when they do. Just like Stephanie and Ayn Rand your pricipals change once your stomach starts grumbling. Republicans with a full belly will deny that but republicans in Red States LOVE the stuff.

But its weird, all those republicans against welfare AND all those republicans ON welfare. You'd think you'd hear more defense coming from repubs on the program they love receiving.

 

[Jarhead]

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

True altruism requires no gratitude.

I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.

I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.

However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.

So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....

I'd think he was an asshole, and hopefully he'll get something to eat.

But this thread is about the children of that asshole, not the asshole.

I understand....but what if it was presented this way to the country..

"We are a country of benevolent and caring people. This is evident by the fact that the citizens have supported programs where tax payer money of the successful is used to give a helping hand to those in need; a helping hand to those that can not help themselves; a helping hand to those that wish they could contribute, but unable to contribute. During these most difficult times we ask those same caring people contribute that much more. Yes, it is asking a lot and yes, it is looking a gift horse in the mouth. But there are people seriously struggling and who better to turn to than those that have proven to all of us that they care."

Why did it have to be...."everyone needs to pay their fair share"....and..."the top 1% don't care about the children"

Did they really expect a positive response?

 

[irosie91]

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.

If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.

The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.

we would have no schools

Why do you say we would have no schools?

taxes support schools. Do you expect each person to pay
fees to send their children to school-----even if they are destitute? --------or do you prefer a society in which children of disabled parents lie in the gutter and beg?