U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:11 AM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You do not make sense here. Yes, funding is not reliable for kids but it isn't because it isn't there. If there is a kid hungry anywhere its for no reason outside of having irresponsible parents.

We then have to decide what we do about that
.
Exactly. Hard decisions need to be made and liberals seem to be unwilling to make them. That helps NO ONE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,222 posts, read 13,973,317 times
Reputation: 6466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22 View Post
No...spelling correctly is the progressive liberal thing to do.

Eugenics.
oh wow...I added a t
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,297,737 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22 View Post
They free up funding to ensure the stability of our food system and for implementation of more social workers in rural/remote areas to work more closely with our most at-risk kids.

I'm curious...how do those amoun(t) to the beginning of the end for the USA?
Answer, They don't....
Are you going to take that EBT card and go buy food for the family ?
What good will more social workers do if the parents aren't providing food with the existing programs in place ?

Take the most at risk kids away from the parents. Expand foster care instead.
I'd rather see tax money going to support foster parents that give a damn than birth parents that don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:14 AM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
You have a growing underclass and that is not helped with expanded programs.
Exactly. More money and expanded programs are NOT the answer. They're making the problem worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,297,737 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Exactly. More money and expanded programs are NOT the answer. They're making the problem worse.
Education is no better and is in the same sinking boat.

The kids are hungry..give the parents more money.
The kids aren't learning..give them laptops.

Well the kids are still hungry and they are still failing in school.
Now what ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,788,958 times
Reputation: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Are you going to take that EBT card and go buy food for the family ?
What good will more social workers do if the parents aren't providing food with the existing programs in place ?

Take the most at risk kids away from the parents. Expand foster care instead.
I'd rather see tax money going to support foster parents that give a damn than birth parents that don't.
More social workers for better monitoring. Better monitoring and smaller caseloads have proven to pay dividends...As far as foster parents go... I think thats a great idea. I don't think anyone would support keeping children with ineffective parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,788,958 times
Reputation: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
oh wow...I added a t
If you pop out some snippy-ass comment you had better ensure that it is flawless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:23 AM
 
5,882 posts, read 4,515,073 times
Reputation: 6547
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22 View Post
What do you propose? Forced steralization? I think the Nazi's looked into that...

I'd prefer forced sterilization or the elimination of most social programs over a larger chunk of my paycheck taken away from me in the future. The children who lived off of others their entire lives and think that is perfectly normal are just going to produce more of the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,297,737 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22 View Post
More social workers for better monitoring. Better monitoring and smaller caseloads have proven to pay dividends...As far as foster parents go... I think thats a great idea. I don't think anyone would support keeping children with ineffective parents.
Are you kidding me ? That's what the free food in school is all about..kids coming to school hungry.
Our government not only supports it but keeps their eyes, ears and mouths shut about it and just expands.

How is it possible that kids in urban areas are coming to school hungry and now schools are open in the summer just to provide food for them because their parents aren't and not one statement is made regarding parental responsibility ? How is that possible and happening here in America ?

No one wants to deal with the truth here. I used urban because there's no excuse for not obtaining food.
Rural might have transportation issues but then again there are government programs to provide free transportation to poor rural folks. And to that I say..if they can get to town to vote then they can certainly get to town to buy food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,788,958 times
Reputation: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You do not make sense here. Yes, funding is not reliable for kids but it isn't because it isn't there. If there is a kid hungry anywhere its for no reason outside of having irresponsible parents.

We then have to decide what we do about that.
That isn't always the case....but in cases where the parents are being negligent in their handlings of their resources...more social workers and lower case loads and the subsequent increase in ability to monitor the welfare of the child lead to better outcomes. The most desireable outcome in a case where the parents have proven themselves to be ineffective is foster care, without question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top