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.
Free abortions for all. Birth control requirements for people living off of state subsidies. It ain't rocket science, people. When you kill a baby in the womb or keep it from ever being conceived in the first place, the argument about letting it starve becomes moot. Toss all the food you want to into those dumpsters behind the clinic, those dismembered fetuses aren't eating a single bite.
So you'd punish the children by withholding food on the basis that their parents might be irresponsible?
At what point would it be more important for you to be able to spend your owned earned (W2) income, to provide for your own children(functional family unit), as opposed to the children of others who, as it seems currently, have parents intent on having children they cannot adequately support(non-functional family unit) ?
We all know a unexpected job loss, or a health care issue can render any family in need of help to support themselves and/or their children. I don't personally believe anyone is opposed to that.
We also however know, and I'm sure we could all cite many examples of people we've come across personally, of people becoming parents without the slightest care/concern or thought as to how they, in their current circumstances would be able to care for, and pay for the needs of a child...and many times it's two, three or more kids.
Nobody wants kids to be hungry and go without, but as someone said in the beginning of this thread that is impossible to argue with, in my opinion. "If you subsidize a behavior you get more of it" I believe that statement personally. I'd welcome others to argue against that statement with logic and experience on your side. The obvious problem being, eventually there wouldn't be enough left for us to take care of our own families adequately. We're a long way from that yet obviously, but are we not definitely on that road and it's just a matter of time ?
It's a worthy point for discussion, regardless of which side you come down on.
Last edited by jasper1372; 09-01-2016 at 11:54 AM..
On top of this, they get food stamps (EBT), WIC, SSI, perhaps SSDI, Section 8,
free health care, dental, vision, free day care, free clothing, food banks that
are like supermarkets, utilities assistance, transportation, and probably whatever
else can be thought of.
No one gets all this stuff at once. Ie: you only get WIC if you are pregnant or have a young child. SSI is for people who are pretty severely disabled. You only get SSI and SSDI if you worked within 10 years of the award. If you do get SSI and/or SSDI - if that award is greater than a certain amount that varies by state (in mine it's about $1400), you no longer qualify for medicaid. There are also rules within households of who can get what. Ie: if you are a disabled adult on SSDI, and you have an adult child who is down syndrome that comes to live with you, that child will NO LONGER be eligible for SSI but will have to take some kind of payment based on the parent's SSDI, which is less than what the combination would be.
The last thing I'm concerned about is the cost of food. Food is cheap & we have huge surpluses of it. We throw out much more food every day than all the free lunch programs in the country. Food based charities are fine & if anything we should have more.
If the cafeteria is blowing up the school budget show me the numbers & I'll re-consider. Otherwise, I'm fine with schools providing food service... it's not like it's expensive or luxurious food anyway. In my opinion a school should just provide all student meals during the course of a school day which means breakfast & lunch. That should just be part of the operating costs.
I don't consider it some kind of virtue to pay for a school lunch. Just pay it out of our taxes that pay for the school's general operations.
I don't even remember if I paid for the cafeteria lunch or not... I guess I did... although my hs had a lot of free lunch people so I may have gotten some for free too. My dad gave me a bi-monthly allowance so when I did pay I must have paid it out of that. I mostly remember not liking the cafeteria food. It did not build any character. Although I usually wanted to go off-campus to someplace like McDonalds or Jack in the Box once I became a junior & was allowed to go off-campus for lunch. Obviously I paid there.
Last edited by redguard57; 09-01-2016 at 01:36 PM..
A shame the govt encourages people who are getting by w/o welfare to apply for welfare !
The schools' interests are not in forcing people onto welfare, but in trying to assure that all kids have access to a balanced and nutritional diet. What would be a shame would be for a child to grow up with dietary deficits simply because a parent was too proudly selfish to enroll in a state-run nutrition program.
The schools' interests are not in forcing people onto welfare, but in trying to assure that all kids have access to a balanced and nutritional diet. What would be a shame would be for a child to grow up with dietary deficits simply because a parent was too proudly selfish to enroll in a state-run nutrition program.
Its not the schools responsibility. The state has a program to supplement peoples groceries and insure a balanced and nutritional diet.
Move somewhere where you can rent an apartment for $383? Sure, maybe Tennessee, where the cash grant for a family of three is $170 a month? But since you know about all these great jobs where women can take their kids to work with them, then why don't you go volunteer to work with poor women and help them get on their feet rather than just pontificate on internet forums and ask me if I'm nuts lol.
Single mothers often have custody orders where they can't legally relocate without giving their children to the father and having to pay him child support while often making minimum wage. Why would any mother willfully suffer the pain of having her children ripped away from her while giving up benefits in exchange for even less than she had? That would be stupid. Not very many mothers would willfully abandon their children and just go on with their lives without their children.
Single mothers often have custody orders where they can't legally relocate without giving their children to the father and having to pay him child support while often making minimum wage. Why would any mother willfully suffer the pain of having her children ripped away from her while giving up benefits in exchange for even less than she had? That would be stupid. Not very many mothers would willfully abandon their children and just go on with their lives without their children.
You are absolutely right, and even without a problem like that how many single parents can get the money together to move to another state, and then pay first months rent and deposit on an apartment? Heck in most states the landlord has 2 or 3 weeks to give you your deposit back - where do you live during that time, in a u-haul truck?
The program you posted about is specifically for children. What should children do if thir parents are unable (for whatever reason) to feed them?
And if you care about hungry children, why would you support a system that MAXIMIZES their numbers? I love dogs, but I would not support a program that simply provided endless food where ever feral dogs congregated.
If you have a child and can't feed it, you certainly shouldn't be rewarded with a check and no limitation on your ability to produce more children.
And if you care about hungry children, why would you support a system that MAXIMIZES their numbers? I love dogs, but I would not support a program that simply provided endless food where ever feral dogs congregated. If you have a child and can't feed it, you certainly shouldn't be rewarded with a check and no limitation on your ability to produce more children.
Definitely we should just starve those little rascals, or better yet put them in a sack and drown them
Definitely we should just starve those little rascals, or better yet put them in a sack and drown them
Not necessary. A better approach would be to move back toward helping parents take responsibility for their reproduction. Start reducing the number of assistance programs that pay for all the medical expenses of every pregnancy and birth, formula, food, etc. Discourage women from getting pregnant and having more kids that they and their partner cant afford. If you know you will have to somehow pay for your own medical expenses and support your own children you will think differently about your reproductive choices.
Things happen and people/families often need some assistance but these programs should not be a permanent fix to depend on to supplement or carry your responsibilities. It is too easy to fall into dependency when you know someone else will carry the ball for you.
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.
