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.
It is true that full "welfare" if taxed is close to $70,000 per year and it takes way people's desire to work. Free money is addictive. In fact, people receiving full welfare are middle income.
I am 100% for a helping hand, but we have created an entire culture of people with no incentive to work at all. And this sub culture gets bigger and bigger. Frankly, I see no end to it.
It is true that full "welfare" if taxed is close to $70,000 per year and it takes way people's desire to work. Free money is addictive. In fact, people receiving full welfare are middle income.
I am 100% for a helping hand, but we have created an entire culture of people with no incentive to work at all. And this sub culture gets bigger and bigger. Frankly, I see no end to it.
So you'd punish the children by withholding food on the basis that their parents might be irresponsible?
Various posts in this thread have become personal attacks and have been removed. As a reminder, while you are free to attack the idea of a poster, going directly after the poster in not appropriate.
So you'd punish the children by withholding food on the basis that their parents might be irresponsible?
Evidently you don't understand how many layers of duplicative benefits and services
are present here.
Allow me to also inform you that when half the children in this country (counting only legals)
is provided with free food all the time, including over 50 million adults, the price of
foodstuffs at the supermarkets never goes lower, because the law of supply and demand
is no longer applicable.
This is a primary reason why food prices continue to rise, because a massive percentage
of the consuming population has no reason to modify their intake of foodstuffs based
on silly things that used to matter, like affordability to the household.
Evidently you don't understand how many layers of duplicative benefits and services
are present here.
Allow me to also inform you that when half the children in this country (counting only legals)
is provided with free food all the time, including over 50 million adults, the price of
foodstuffs at the supermarkets never goes lower, because the law of supply and demand
is no longer applicable.
This is a primary reason why food prices continue to rise, because a massive percentage
of the consuming population has no reason to modify their intake of foodstuffs based
on silly things that used to matter, like affordability to the household.
So the answer to my question is "yes, I'd let kids go hungry if I disapproved of what I believe of their parents situation".
That's all well and good but it doesn't always happen that way. You plan to just let the kids not eat because their parents are in a bad way? Even if the parents are irresponsible - is starving their kids going to help anything?
Mother Nature controls populations so that they don't get too big. When food starts to get scarce, then the weaker animals starve and die, while the stronger ones get the food and live. In this way, the stronger survives and the species evolves.
While emotionally I will always try to help make sure kids have enough to eat, intellectually I know that it is bad for the human race to do so. Survival of the fittest means I should accept that those who cannot provide for their offspring should not propagate the gene pool. When we feed the children of those who cannot acquire adequate resources, we are essentially de-evolving the species. Damaging humankind.
It's a painful thought. Unfortunately, until humans get off this planet, getting enough food is a zero-sum game. Everyone can't win. But everyone CAN lose, which is what we're doing.
Mother Nature controls populations so that they don't get too big. When food starts to get scarce, then the weaker animals starve and die, while the stronger ones get the food and live. In this way, the stronger survives and the species evolves.
While emotionally I will always try to help make sure kids have enough to eat, intellectually I know that it is bad for the human race to do so. Survival of the fittest means I should accept that those who cannot provide for their offspring should not propagate the gene pool. When we feed the children of those who cannot acquire adequate resources, we are essentially de-evolving the species. Damaging humankind.
It's a painful thought. Unfortunately, until humans get off this planet, getting enough food is a zero-sum game. Everyone can't win. But everyone CAN lose, which is what we're doing.
Exactly. What we are doing overall is encouraging the defective units in society to propagate, to the disadvantage of society as a whole. If the cause is genetics or social, it makes no sense to encourage whatever you want to call them to reproduce or to support them.
If you want to support someone else as a mater of personal belief then do so but people should not be forced to subsidize others.
Mother Nature controls populations so that they don't get too big. When food starts to get scarce, then the weaker animals starve and die, while the stronger ones get the food and live. In this way, the stronger survives and the species evolves.
While emotionally I will always try to help make sure kids have enough to eat, intellectually I know that it is bad for the human race to do so. Survival of the fittest means I should accept that those who cannot provide for their offspring should not propagate the gene pool. When we feed the children of those who cannot acquire adequate resources, we are essentially de-evolving the species. Damaging humankind.
It's a painful thought. Unfortunately, until humans get off this planet, getting enough food is a zero-sum game. Everyone can't win. But everyone CAN lose, which is what we're doing.
There is plenty of food for all of mankind, as is evidenced by the vast amount of waste in many countries, including our own. How do you lose by ensuring the weakest links (ie children) don't go hungry?
once upon a time I use to drive past the projects to get to my full time career job. One morning my husband was driving me to work and I said to him ,"Its not fair that you and I have to work a full time job and these people don't have to do anything and get all that was mentioned in the article. Food stamps, phones, help with electric and he stopped me in mid sentence and said ........ Honey is that all you want out of life. living the way they chose to? Do you really think they can go on vacations and all the perks and we get? I thought about it and said you are right they are happy getting all of those things but there life is so much smaller not to mention all the kids they have. We stopped a one since that is all we could afford.
So today both of us are retired and have so much more then the generations of families that choose to live that kind of life. its not for us to judge its only about what we contribute in our world. lesson learned...
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.
