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.
Let's face it, it's far easier to live on the minimum wage as a single person than have multiple people live on one persons minimum wage.
...Until supposedly government assistance, where some argue that it's easier, and it's the reason certain people obtain more children to live under their house hold.
But said children take away one other valuable resource from the people that obtained the children: time.
Thus, the people in question will have difficulty professionally progressing than say a person who can not only work full time but attend school, training, or perhaps over time as well.
It is important to note that many welfare recipients are recipients due to children.
The problem with these recipients is that you cannot get rid of the children through any moral means.
If you take away the welfare, kids aren't getting fed.
If you have welfare the government isn't getting fed.
Either way in a poor economy it is far more likely that the children of poor stay poor.
And with medicaid births reaching more than 50% in some states, the poor continue to have children.
So where does that leave you when the poor with kids have more kids ?
[quote=TheHurricaneKid;27981300
Either way in a poor economy it is far more likely that the children of poor stay poor.[/quote]
Not necessarily, but we need to change the way social welfare programs distribute funds.
I'd love to see welfare as well as food stamps for adults as a variable amount tied to both family size and the educational progress of the children. Give families with the older kids in post secondary education (grants, scholarships, loans are plentiful) more money than like families where no child went past grade 12. If all kids are younger, give more to families where the kids are in the top 20% of the class versus the bottom 20%.
To insure the children are taken care of, in such cases where funds are cut, we should offer all 3 meals per day -children ONLY-at a combination of their schools and a social service office.
The extra cost for the 3rd meal would be more than offset by lower food stamp costs for parents not making sure the next generation is more self sufficient than they are.
And with medicaid births reaching more than 50% in some states, the poor continue to have children.
So where does that leave you when the poor with kids have more kids ?
I don't know it's a tough spot.
You either interfere with ability of the poor to have children
or make the children hungry
or make the government hungry
If the government get's hungry enough, most everyone will be hungry.
People won't be too happy to have their ability to have children to be interfered upon.
...Nor would they be happy to have children or parents die due to no food.
...Of course it is entirely possible to keep everyone hungry, just look at certain third world countries.
You either interfere with ability of the poor to have children
or make the children hungry
or make the government hungry
If the government get's hungry enough, most everyone will be hungry.
People won't be too happy to have their ability to have children to be interfered upon.
...Nor would they be happy to have children or parents die due to no food.
...Of course it is entirely possible to keep everyone hungry, just look at certain third world countries.
How can they possibly be hungry ? WIC, food stamps, free breakfast/lunch/snack in school and food pantries. The poor have an obesity problem in the US.
If parents are on food stamps and there is no food at home so we have to feed the poor kids at school then why aren't the parents being charged with child abuse ? Why are the kids still living there ?
Only in the US can the poor be considered poor, yet eat well, be housed well, get a good eduction, own a car 2,000 dollar wheels, get a job, go to college, and make something of themselves.
So why do so many hate this country because we're abusing the poor?
Jesus himself said we'd always have the poor with us.
I'm not sure there is much we can do about it. In an ideal world, teenagers and college-aged student would be busy getting an education and/or learning a trade and would not spend as much time fornicating with one another. But as unlikely as it is that we could calm their raging hormones, even that will not solve the problem completely.
It would also be ideal if couples who did not have the means to support a child held off on having a child until they could improve their situation. But, considering that abstinence is the cheapest and most readily available form of birth control (the presence of several Condoms to Go drive-thru's in my area nothwithstanding), that is unlikely to happen.
So, that leaves us with determining how much the rest of us should be expected to pony up in order to feed, clothe and house their offspring. I don't think people have children in order to get more welfare, but its presence helps reduce the consequences of their actions (or inactions as the case may be).
Poor people, those who are least able to support and provide for children, are the ones who seem to produce the most. The answer to the original question is "the solution is for the poor to stop breeding like rats." The rest of us are tired of paying for them.
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.
