When republicans complain about single moms getting food stamps, why don’t they consider the well-being of the child?

Also, you need to understand how government programs work. ANY government program over time need additional dollars. That’s just how inflation works. The actual way to measure government spending is to compute it as a percentage of GDP.
Well that certainly isn't true. If you create a program to address a problem and you actually solve the problem, there's no need for any increases.
 
Since 1969, 41 million people have been added to the rolls of recipients (see above). How is it possible they are all the same people? Identity fraud?
Poverty is increasing. Poverty in 1969 is nothing like poverty today.
 
Single moms having kids they can’t afford is an easy target. It makes a right winger feel superior by shitting on such a woman. It makes it easy to rail against the idea of food stamps altogether. Such a person judging feels superior because they aren’t on food stamps and have a full time job in comparison. Somebody should probably tell them that it is very common for anyone to have a full time job and not be on food stamps lol. Such people judging aren’t as special as they like to think they are. Food stamps is not the epidemic that republicans like to think it is. They simply pretend that it is because it makes them feel less insecure about themselves. The truth is that few actual able bodied adults are even on food stamps. The ones that are have dependents.

But sure, such irresponsible women do exist.

We can all agree: an impoverished woman should not have kids and she made a mistake when she had one. Okay sure. However, the kid still…. exists. What should we do with that kid? Should the kid suffer because of the mom’s mistakes? Probably not, right? Government assistance is required either way.

“SNAP targets those in greatest need. Among those participating in the program, most are children, elderly persons, or individuals with a disability. In fact, 86 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households that include a child, elderly person, or person with disabilities. In addition, about 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households with income at or below the federal poverty line.”
Why don't the family ( mainly the father ) consider the well being of the child?

Why blame total strangers???
 
Well that certainly isn't true. If you create a program to address a problem and you actually solve the problem, there's no need for any increases.
It’s stupid to assume anything will solve the issue at hand. Your solution certainly doesn’t.
 
Everything the government provides to one person must be taken from another.
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.
Where have we heard that failed philosophy before?
Every government has a right to impose taxes. USA just wasted 32 billion on anti-Russian policy.

Children must be provided for -- this is the responsibility of Society!
 
Well it might not be so hard on people if the gov't wouldn't stop throwing money into a giant hole and turning it into toilet paper.

And Blue shitholes taxing everything that moves......or doesn't move.

 
Poverty is increasing. Poverty in 1969 is nothing like poverty today.

So, if poverty is increasing (x) and number of people considered to be living in poverty is increasing (y) and the money being spent to combat poverty is increasing (z) then it would seem that what we're doing isn't providing any solution.

If spending money to combat poverty were a solution, the proportionality between X, Y and Z would be inversely, not directly proportional.

What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
 
Lol okay what? See what I asked for was evidence that shows separating kids from their parents is a viable idea.
Of course it's viable as an idea, it's done every day especially when parents are abusive or get sent to prison.

When you remove kids from a home situation that is dangerous or unhealthy for them, you solve the problems which would have occurred had they been left in that situation. Conversely we unfortunately see kids that don't get removed from those situations that end up abused, neglected, failing in schools and at high risk themselves for repeating the same cycles of poverty, addiction, abuse, neglect and incarceration.

Kids learn often best by example, if you put them into a better home situation they learn that it is possible not to end up in the gutter like mommy with a needle in her arm or daddy doing 20 to life for drug trafficking, murder or other noteworthy achievements in life.
 
I don't have a solution and if we are being honest neither does anyone else the sad simple truth is you can't take care of everyone who is in a bad way. For all on both sides of the political fence who to rant about other's not doing enough to help first look in the mirror and honestly ask yourself what have you done to help.
 
Why don't the family ( mainly the father ) consider the well being of the child?

Why blame total strangers???
Ultimately except in cases of rape the mother makes all final decisions when it comes to making babies.
 
Poverty is increasing. Poverty in 1969 is nothing like poverty today.
Poverty today makes a family eligible for enough freebies to put them on par with middle class families.

Free health care, free housing, fee money, free food, free cell phones, free utilities and best of all they need never work a day in their lives for any of it.
 
Every government has a right to impose taxes. USA just wasted 32 billion on anti-Russian policy.
Every government has a responsibility to impose moderate taxes to fund its functions. Marxist wealth redistribution is not one of them. $30,000,000,000,000 in debt says we are on the wrong path.
Children must be provided for -- this is the responsibility of Society!
No, that's the responsibility of their parents. If the parents die, then the charitable elements of society can be called upon to help/adopt.
 
So, if poverty is increasing (x) and number of people considered to be living in poverty is increasing (y) and the money being spent to combat poverty is increasing (z) then it would seem that what we're doing isn't providing any solution.

If spending money to combat poverty were a solution, the proportionality between X, Y and Z would be inversely, not directly proportional.

What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
No one ever said that there was some cure to this problem. Also, the parameters of who is considered poor has not changed besides the inevitable rise of inflation.
 
Poverty today makes a family eligible for enough freebies to put them on par with middle class families.

Free health care, free housing, fee money, free food, free cell phones, free utilities and best of all they need never work a day in their lives for any of it.
Without statistics, you’re just rambling.
 

Forum List

Back
Top