U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:19 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
430 posts, read 643,595 times
Reputation: 617

Advertisements

I read that she has 6 kids, all daughters except for that one son. She is a single mother, and seems to have been unemployed for a very long time.

Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture? Should perpetually unemployed single women be having six kids? Now they're all living off of federal welfare, of course.

I don't want to offend, but she doesn't seem to be exactly "Mom of the Year" during the other 364 days of the year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:20 AM
 
1,188 posts, read 1,051,939 times
Reputation: 2083
I agree. After the first 3 kids she should have had her spine severed. After 6 kids, she should have had her spinal column ripped out, Mortal Kombat style.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 69,929,185 times
Reputation: 27520
She's employed...an Asst. Manager somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:26 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
430 posts, read 643,595 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjasse View Post
I agree. After the first 3 kids she should have had her spine severed. After 6 kids, she should have had her spinal column ripped out, Mortal Kombat style.
LOL. I feel like you've used that line somewhere before.

So no one (but you) is advocating violence like her son was. But should she be rewarded by the government for popping out babies, with cash incentives?

I propose that instead of giving her cash per child, the government should take away children whose parents are unable to, and have never been able to, provide financially. Remove all these current incentives for Survival of the Weakest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:28 AM
 
35,121 posts, read 37,862,490 times
Reputation: 61846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blimp View Post
I read that she has 6 kids, all daughters except for that one son. She is a single mother, and seems to have been unemployed for a very long time.

Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture? Should perpetually unemployed single women be having six kids? Now they're all living off of federal welfare, of course.

I don't want to offend, but she doesn't seem to be exactly "Mom of the Year" during the other 364 days of the year.

This has what to do with the incident with her son at the riot?
Absolutely nothing but you are free to assume whatever you wish since you do not know her, every detail of her life or the reason she is a single Mother of six children.
How do you know she is living off of welfare alone? Do you see her accounts? Get her mail? Know every detail of her finances and life?
No you do not and you are making assumptions based on a story you read somewhere more than likely.
However, if it is in the news then whatever they say must be the truth and all of the details are always in the story because it is in the news and they never leave out anything or lie or embellish.


PS ~~ If you did not "mean to offend" you would have never started this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:30 AM
 
35,121 posts, read 37,862,490 times
Reputation: 61846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blimp View Post
LOL. I feel like you've used that line somewhere before.

So no one (but you) is advocating violence like her son was. But should she be rewarded by the government for popping out babies, with cash incentives?

I propose that instead of giving her cash per child, the government should take away children of which whose parents are unable to, and have never been able to, provide for financially. Remove all these current incentives for Survival of the Weakest.

Really? Who exactly is going to provide for those children and pay for them? You?

Nope not you? Then who? The government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:32 AM
 
3,217 posts, read 1,633,466 times
Reputation: 1840
She demonstrated that she loves her son and wanted to remove him from risk. Hardly qualifies her for mom of the year.
However she did set an example of what other local parents should have done at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:32 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
430 posts, read 643,595 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610 View Post
Really? Who exactly is going to provide for those children and pay for them? You?

Nope not you? Then who? The government?
Yeah, the government via orphanages. When the financial incentive to have more kids to receive more welfare is no longer there, this is by far the least expensive option for taxpayers in what economists call the "long run".

In the future, most of these kids would no longer be born in the first place without proper planning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:33 AM
 
38,270 posts, read 15,350,382 times
Reputation: 16874
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
She's employed...an Asst. Manager somewhere.
She is unemployed. Initially she reported that she was an asst. manager at a recovery center. But later it came out that she isn't working.

Taxpayers must be supporting that family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:34 AM
 
38,270 posts, read 15,350,382 times
Reputation: 16874
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610 View Post
Really? Who exactly is going to provide for those children and pay for them? You?

Nope not you? Then who? The government?
The govenment IS paying for them. Government funding = taxpayers = US. Question answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top