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.
So, the woman is angry because the "system" does not value her "skills", which has to do with low paying kitchen work even after her "college" education? And, even as she has never had anything but poor paying jobs in her life, she still had "kids" (multiple) with no partner support, and she is angry at the "system" for keeping her poor? What happened to owning one's personal choice? If you want the freedom of personal choice, then you should not be angry when personal choice yields bad results.
She shouldn't be angry. She should be grateful that there are social welfare programs that exist for her and her kids, despite her very poor and personal life choices.
AMEN!!!!!!!
ITS her attitude that prevails among welfare recipients...I am entitled
Ahh. So now you are concerned about the money. I thought it was supposed be about raising the kids properly. As for the problem, that was created by the two that spawned the kid in the first place. There shouldn't be financial reward from the taxpayers for it.
I made the same argument OhioGirl made yet you ignored mine.
I'm not concerned about the money, I'm not against my tax dollars going to social service programs.
Since the people against spending money on assistance want to just end the programs and let everyone fend for themselves because it costs too much are hypocrites.
I only addressed money to make the point that ending assistance actually costs more than providing assistance. Therefore if you really, truly care about the money the smart decision is to pay for the option that costs the least.
I only addressed money to make the point that ending assistance actually costs more than providing assistance.
You don't really know that.
In the example I gave regarding the gal with the 8 kids, I doubt that she would have continued having more kids, one after the other, if assistance was not available.
You don't know what would happen. But, it is not irrational to believe/expect that in the absence or great reduction of assistance the gal would have had just the one kid by mistake... after that, I suspect that she would have taken more responsibility for her own actions.
Gee, I can't understand why all the taxpayers don't want to pay for me to have a horse.
Something about it's not our responsibility ......
It's called reality. People are having sex and are going to have sex with or without birth control. I am pragmatic and Id rather pay $6 a month for birth control than the cost of raising a child for 18 years.
Heck I'll pay for your birth control even if you're not on food stamps if you live in my city...that was I don't have to pay more taxes to the schools when I myself don't have kids.
And you only give insult as argument. And now you can't even address me directly and you insult in the 3rd person. This isn't "intelligent discussion". It's the hallmark of someone who can't logically address with facts something they don't like.
BTW, you have yet to address what I first posted here where you tried this.
Then again, this seems to be the only defense of those who think that living off the government/taxpayers is perfectly acceptable.
Only a fool respond to you seriously. Don't bother responding to me anymore, as I just found the ignore feature, and I'm ready to put it to use. I recommend you do the same so you can't see my topics anymore. One less bothersome voice we have to hear for the both of us eh?
It's called reality. People are having sex and are going to have sex with or without birth control.
My wife and I would love to have had more kids. But, we did not believe that we could afford more, so we stopped having kids. It wasn't difficult to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I am pragmatic and Id rather pay $6 a month for birth control than the cost of raising a child for 18 years.
Of course. I'd rather people pay for their own birth control, too, if they do not want to have kids. How is this an issue?
My wife and I would love to have had more kids. But, we did not believe that we could afford more, so we stopped having kids. It wasn't difficult to do.
Did you stop having sex or are you using contraception, in any form, including vasectomy, iud etc...? That's great it works for you.
However as another poster said that isn't easy if there is no birth control available.
Not to mention accidents happen. No matter what system we use.
QUOTE=Salmonburgher;40607936]
Of course. I'd rather people pay for their own birth control, too, if they do not want to have kids. How is this an issue?[/quote]
I'm pretty sure ocnjgirl meant that she doesn't mind spending $6 a month/her tax dollars so that someone who can't afford birth control can get it for free.
Because as many people have said in this thread, yet you and Waldo can't seem to comprehend that preventing a child from being born costs far less than having a kid you can't care for.
I'm pretty sure I'm talking to brick walls at this point.
Typical person using an EBT card in line at the grocery store near where I live:
Chatting on a $500 cell phone.
Has $1,500-2,000 in tattoo work on arms and other visible areas.
Mentions their 'vacation' while chatting on the phone.
Has piles of stuff like pizzas, snacks & assorted crap. Rarely any vegetables or things that require effort to prepare.
Acts like royalty, oblivious to the fact they eat for free. EBT - Eatin' Better Today.
Leaves and gets in a new Acura, BMW or Toyota FJ
To poor people, an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy is a symbol that they're not poor. They go without an awful lot of things to have that phone. They want their teen children to have that phone. I think it's crazy but I can understand the mindset. When I was unemployed 7 years ago living on an unemployment check, I stepped down to an old RAZR and the cheapest possible voice-only plan with Text disabled. I used free WiFi off a neighbor to do everything else. I ditched cable TV. I paid for a cheap yearly all-you-can-eat Skype account to make phone calls and save the cell phone minutes.
The luxury car is a very, very, very rare exception unless it's a "fake rich" car that is a decade old and too expensive to maintain to have much market value. Poor people drive cars purchased in buy-here, pay-here lots. They're really lousy cars bought at auction, cleaned up to look presentable, and sold at high profit margins to people who can't qualify for a car loan on a reliable, low mileage econobox. Every week is a challenge to come up with the car payment to prevent the car from being repossessed or disabled with an embedded cellular modem/GPS tracker device. No car means you can't get to work. You can't run your kids around to the structured activities that keep them from becoming delinquents.
The poor people I know work their tails off. Typically single mothers with little education. Double shifts as a waitress. Whatever it takes to cover the bills. Enormous stress juggling everything so the rent is paid, the utilities stay on, the car doesn't get repo'd, and the phone doesn't get shut off. I have no issue at all that Medicaid/CHIP is picking up their health insurance. If they can get a bit of food help with an EBT card, I'm fine with that. They're typically means tested out of Section 8 housing and don't want to train wreck their children by putting them in the failed neighborhood school system next to the housing project.
That said.....
I think there are a lot of people who game the system to their advantage. The State of Maine instituted a mandatory 20 hours per week of work or volunteering requirement for able-bodied people to receive food stamps. Their program went from 12,000 people to 2,860 in a few months. I suspect that mostly captured people working in the grey economy off the books. They were better off dropping food stamps than going on the books with their income. I imagine most of them weren't making big pay. Again, single mothers working as waitresses for cash and undeclared tips and that sort of thing. They need all the help they can get but when faced with having to declare all those hours, they opted out of SNAP. I imagine there were some much higher income people gaming the system but I'd bet that's not most of the people who dropped off the roles.
Good read. Anyone who wants to stand in judgment of those who take public assistance ought to read it. My dad had to resort to help when I was growing up, and he worked himself to the bone. If you haven't been there, you don't know what it's like.
You know who abuses the food-stamp system? Big corporations that refuse to pay their workers enough to live on. They don't bother because they know the government will pick up the slack, yet they're raking in record profits for themselves. That's where people's anger should be directed. Stop sending our jobs overseas, stop hoarding profits, and start paying people a fair living wage. Corporate leaders used to understand the benefit of doing that. It makes your workers happy and loyal. Now workers are viewed as a cost to be minimized, not human beings with families to support and bills to pay.
Good point. It is just much easier and nicer to take out anger on a person right in front of you and claim they are not ashamed enough, grateful enough or buying the correct things. Everybody wants a scapegoat. I certainly agree there are people abusing the system, but, the claims that people love to make about "they somebody who knows somebody" is just stupid.
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.
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.
