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.
Republicans:
"Stop teaching sex ed to students. Tell them abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy"
"Get rid of Planned Parenthood. Providing easy access to contraceptives is only going to encourage risky, premarital sex"
"Ban all abortions, no matter how early they are performed. If accidental pregnancies happen, it's God's will."
"Where the hell are all these poor children coming from? Why are you having kids if you can't afford them?"
This conservative has never rallied against Sex Ed.
This conserative has never rallied to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood. I merely don't want my tax dollars subsidizing abortion. There's a difference.
This conservative knows where the poor children come from. They come from the preponderance of Personally Irresponsible adults in America! Which is what i'm railing against!
And yet most military families are able to receive WIC.
Didn't read the whole thread but wanted to reiterate this. Most (meaning a majority) of military families with children qualify for WIC, many qualify for foodstamps as well. These people work hard, for our country no less, but according to the OP they should not have children either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
My skin is thick. Your personal attacks don't bother me.
Care to comment on the 9 million Americans who are exercising personal irresponsibility at your expense? Oh...and by the way....WIC is only good until age 5 for the children. All this crap about bad luck only lasts for so long. So trying to explain away personal irresponsibility with "job loss" etc only gets you so far. But I highly doubt you're interested in broaching that subject are you?
Wanted to say that WIC is good through age 5 because at that time children go to school and if they are still in a poor family they are eligible for free lunch and breakfast. Also the first 5 years of a child's life are the most important developmentally and physically. Children grow the most during this time, also their personality traits are set for life by age 5 so it makes sense to target them from the womb (pregnant women can get WIC vouchers) through 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by believe007
I have had jobs where it became obvious who was getting away with what. Families who somehow were able to get $2000.00 a month in food stamps. The other people I worked with told me it's widely known who gets away with this. I didn't know the families personally, just knew of them when they came in.
(And ironically I know of people who genuinely needed it, that got denied.)
I also know people that get the earned income tax credit, that work just enough to be able to get the earned income credit. A thousand per kid, at 4 or 5 kids apiece, adds up.
As for your suggestion, It is not my job to turn people in.
I don't work at that particular place any longer, thank God.
Had to LOL at the bolded area. Sorry but I don't know ANYONE who get $2000 a month in foodstamps and I live in a poor neighborhood and the majority of the people in my neighborhood get foodstamps. You'd probably have to have about 6 kids at least to get even $800 a month in foodstamps, you'd probably need 12 to get near $2000 a month and not many women have 12 kids or more. That was pretty funny.
On WIC though wanted to state that I have my issues with this program, which I already described in another thread but wanted to state that I feel on a whole WIC is a wonderful program that many other social programs should follow. They have vouchers, not cash, and you can only get specific items. They have a time limit. They have medical checks to ensure that the children that they are helping are remaining healthy. They take into account any special circumstances of the children they serve (premature, lactose intolerance, allergies, etc.)
Also wanted to note that WIC primarily serves working families and that the majority of people in this country live pay check to pay check. Everything financially cannot be planned for, life happens. I for one do not want to see children starve and think that as the richest country in the world, it isn't a horrible thing to help 8.9 million people, about 3% of our country with some food.
How do you know the personal story of every WIC recipient, and how soon they needed help? Do you know they weren't "responsible" and financially okay when the child was conceived? Didn't think so.
Same way all the liberals on here know the personal stories of all the "rich" people and how they deserve to be taxed more.
Didn't read the whole thread but wanted to reiterate this. Most (meaning a majority) of military families with children qualify for WIC, many qualify for foodstamps as well. These people work hard, for our country no less, but according to the OP they should not have children either.
Wanted to say that WIC is good through age 5 because at that time children go to school and if they are still in a poor family they are eligible for free lunch and breakfast. Also the first 5 years of a child's life are the most important developmentally and physically. Children grow the most during this time, also their personality traits are set for life by age 5 so it makes sense to target them from the womb (pregnant women can get WIC vouchers) through 5.
Had to LOL at the bolded area. Sorry but I don't know ANYONE who get $2000 a month in foodstamps and I live in a poor neighborhood and the majority of the people in my neighborhood get foodstamps. You'd probably have to have about 6 kids at least to get even $800 a month in foodstamps, you'd probably need 12 to get near $2000 a month and not many women have 12 kids or more. That was pretty funny.
On WIC though wanted to state that I have my issues with this program, which I already described in another thread but wanted to state that I feel on a whole WIC is a wonderful program that many other social programs should follow. They have vouchers, not cash, and you can only get specific items. They have a time limit. They have medical checks to ensure that the children that they are helping are remaining healthy. They take into account any special circumstances of the children they serve (premature, lactose intolerance, allergies, etc.)
Also wanted to note that WIC primarily serves working families and that the majority of people in this country live pay check to pay check. Everything financially cannot be planned for, life happens. I for one do not want to see children starve and think that as the richest country in the world, it isn't a horrible thing to help 8.9 million people, about 3% of our country with some food.
Per the LOL at the bolded area: Just a point that pertains to the thread. You have your experience- living in a terribly poor area; maybe you don't know as many people in various situations as I do. Whatever the case, the thread made some good points......
WIC is a great program. It has a very specific focus and allows its beneficiaries to buy limited food products, which makes it more resistant to fraud. Have you ever heard of "WIC fraud?"
It is not always irresponsible to have children that you couldn't afford otherwise if it were not for government assistance. Many people in their 20s- the ideal childbearing years - are just starting out in their careers and are on the borderline of having the means to support a child. This is especially true now with the recession. Programs like WIC can go a long way in helping them. Many of those who received WIC 20 years ago happen to be the taxpayers funding the programs.
Otherwise, what do you expect them to do? Wait until they are 35 and can sustain a family on their own account, at which age they will need IVF to have a child?
The government has a responsibility to create an ideal environment for raising families. Family rights are at least as important as the rights of the individual. If that means funding such programs so mothers can stay home or so that families can even be started, so be it.
WIC is a great program. It has a very specific focus and allows its beneficiaries to buy limited food products, which makes it more resistant to fraud. Have you ever heard of "WIC fraud?"
It is not always irresponsible to have children that you couldn't afford otherwise if it were not for government assistance. Many people in their 20s- the ideal childbearing years - are just starting out in their careers and are on the borderline of having the means to support a child. This is especially true now with the recession. Programs like WIC can go a long way in helping them. Many of those who received WIC 20 years ago happen to be the taxpayers funding the programs.
Otherwise, what do you expect them to do? Wait until they are 35 and can sustain a family on their own account, at which age they will need IVF to have a child?
The government has a responsibility to create an ideal environment for raising families. Family rights are at least as important as the rights of the individual. If that means funding such programs so mothers can stay home or so that families can even be started, so be it.
How is not "always irresponsible to have children that you couldn't afford" without government assistance?
This is the height of personal irresponsiblity! "Lets procreate and let the government pay for it!"
Without the poor having children in America, there'd be much much fewer children in America.
Guess we can keep importing people. Though... a lot of our "imported guests" have more kids than anyone while being well below the poverty line.
Are you suggesting that poor people having kids is better than none at all? Are you familiar with statistics regarding the plight of poor children and what generally happens to those poor children in life (ie. crime, drugs, HS dropouts, etc).
WIC is a great program. It has a very specific focus and allows its beneficiaries to buy limited food products, which makes it more resistant to fraud. Have you ever heard of "WIC fraud?"
It is not always irresponsible to have children that you couldn't afford otherwise if it were not for government assistance. Many people in their 20s- the ideal childbearing years - are just starting out in their careers and are on the borderline of having the means to support a child. This is especially true now with the recession. Programs like WIC can go a long way in helping them. Many of those who received WIC 20 years ago happen to be the taxpayers funding the programs.
Otherwise, what do you expect them to do? Wait until they are 35 and can sustain a family on their own account, at which age they will need IVF to have a child?
The government has a responsibility to create an ideal environment for raising families. Family rights are at least as important as the rights of the individual. If that means funding such programs so mothers can stay home or so that families can even be started, so be it.
A point that should be well taken by the OP. The right wing claims to be about family values and anti-abortion, but somehow that gets lost in the shuffle once the child is born. I agree that a young woman that cannot afford to have a child for various reasons should wait until her situation improves to start a family, but if she has an unplanned pregnancy, those on the right are adamant about sticking their noses in her womb and decision making, but resent tax dollars paying for nutrition for the baby once it's here. Again..."Save the Fetus...Screw the Child".
Lets try it from this angle. You say that people should not have kids if they can't afford them. You say that they should have personal responsibility. How can you legislate that? What law should we enact that will ensure personal responsibility? what should happen to the person who breaks it? What happens to kid as a result?
There's no magic trick or rocket science involved here. You just stop paying people to do nothing.
You see, yours is the attitude people always take about welfare. We couldn't possibly lower funding to welfare programs. How can you possibly stop it without having these poor underprivileged innnocent souls suffering in the streets? The horror of it all! But in the 90s when they actually did reform welfare despite the objections and the free money dried up, well golly gee instead of starving in the streets those people suddenly developed a capacity for holding down a job. Amazing.
The more people you give welfare to, the more people will need welfare.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you stop subsidizing it, you'll have less of it.
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.
