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.
And you think by withholding food from their children these parents will become responsible, eh?
What you will have will be a lot of children who will simply steal out of hunger.
If they give a damn about their kids they won't allow them to starve but get a job and support them themselves. Unless you are claiming that the poor and/or lazy don't care about their kids. The problem is we are enabling them now by supporting their kids on the taxpayer dime. Somewhere along the line this has got to stop and it doesn't have to happen all at once but within a reasonable time frame.
You don't think a 3.6% UE rate month after month helps the poor?
As for your "solutions," how much should we subsidize childcare for a parent that earns something close to the minimum wage?
If the poor can't seem to control their inclinations to procreate while they don't have a subsidized house, how does giving them a house help reduce that urge?
The benefits they receive are based on the number of children they have, so where is the incentive to anything but make more babies?
Exactly! We need to start removing the incentives for the poor and lazy to keep procreating not encourage it with more handouts.
If they give a damn about their kids they won't allow them to starve but get a job and support them themselves. Unless you are claiming that the poor and/or lazy don't care about their kids. The problem is we are enabling them now by supporting their kids on the taxpayer dime. Somewhere along the line this has got to stop and it doesn't have to happen all at once but within a reasonable time frame.
Most families getting food stamps DO work.** It's just that they have low-paying dead-end jobs. If the parents could get a better job, they would; in some cases, they just don't have the skills.
So let's say we go with your plan and stop providing EBT benefits and free lunch to their kids at school. And let's say that the working poor parents (many time it's just one parent and usually when that is the case, it's the mother) can't make up the extra funds to feed them without skipping out on their rent. What do you think the real-life consequences of this would be and what do you think should be done about it?
I'm thinking the consequences will be:
-hungry children
-hungry mom
-homelessness (in cases where mom pays for food rather than rent)
Solutions:
-just let kids be hungry (keeping in mind that they will do poorly in school, steal, get into fights, need more medical are, etc.)
-bring back child labor and put those kids to work
??
Since you're against feeding hungry kids, I'm not sure what other solutions you'd find acceptable. Helping mom get the education she needs for a better job is a great long-term solution, but it doesn't feed hungry bellies in the meantime. Also, people against feeding kids are also usually against providing childcare... so I guess mom wouldn't be able to go to school anyway, since she'd be working while the kids were at school.
Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, though, and you have a solution in mind.
Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and because many workers turn to SNAP when they are between jobs, more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children.
Republicans. They focus on improving conditions for ALL people, of helping those to succeed that are actually making an effort to do so. Under the current administration we have near-record low unemployment. Those that want jobs CAN get them. Employment is the first step out of homelessness or poverty.
Not everyone who wants a job can get one. That is up to the employers. If you have a lot of health problems the employers won't want you. You cannot force an employer to hire you.
the republican party has been on the wrong side of every social program always...unless one starts talking about some mystic philosophical "saving them from socialism" type perspective....nobody gets rich from a little handout of food anyone who believes this handout is an incentive can feel free to quit their job and join the handout line..lol
the majority of handouts go to children..the right punishes children for the imagined "sins of their parents" while increasing the death machine called the "military industrial complex" and big military government (while needing guns to protect themselves from this big military)...and yes the left supports the complex as well
Imagined? When you have children you are responsible for providing for their needs. Anyone who brings children into a life of dependency on gov't handouts (notice, also a life of poverty) is thinking of their own needs and it's the most selfish thing you can do. Using the children to justify getting handouts is pathetic.
And you think by withholding food from their children these parents will become responsible, eh?
What you will have will be a lot of children who will simply steal out of hunger.
I doubt anyone minds helping but the continued dependency and making more babies... people feel taken advantage of while they work hard to support their own kids and their kids. No one wants to be taken advantage of.
The people paying the food bill is away from their own families, miss their kids birthdays and holidays to make that money while people who won't go out to work are with their kids. Whats fair about that?
Not everyone who wants a job can get one. That is up to the employers. If you have a lot of health problems the employers won't want you. You cannot force an employer to hire you.
I've learned that the safety net is for people who were takers most of their lives. If you worked in the past, the income levels are so low that you could easily make too much even with SS. The middle class think there is a safety net for them but this is not true. People need to educate themselves about the safety net and the qualification limits.
i always enjoy your posts..they usually contain more factual informative history than most...i myself don't have the patience to put up with the dozen or so posters who continuously post pro trump right wing non-sense...my belief is that if you don't have a worth of about 10 million dollars with stock market investment you have no business supporting the republican party...the stock market does not adequately represent our economy...cant tell a trunper that lol
Yes, middle class people do invest in the stock market (preparing for the future). They know they will live in poverty if they depend on gov't (tax payers) to provide for them.
People who won't work or they work a minimum wage job didn't plan for their future from the beginning and they are living with the results of their lack of planning and action. Did these people really think a min wage job would provide the good life or didn't they think about it at all?
Nether. The Republican side only care about rich people or whatever is best for the businesses. Democrats on the hand are more about illegal aliens and abortion. All in all, Republicans do better on social issues but not so much on economic ones. Democrats are a bit better on economic stuff but don't do so well regarding social issues.
There are many reasons the rich tend to support the Dems. Dems are the party of big gov't, and the mega-rich and big organizations are in a position to benefit from BG programs. Tax breaks for following the will of the social engineers, a little subsidy here, a loan guarantee there. Look to the favors big gov't offers them.
Nether. The Republican side only care about rich people or whatever is best for the businesses. Democrats on the hand are more about illegal aliens and abortion. All in all, Republicans do better on social issues but not so much on economic ones. Democrats are a bit better on economic stuff but don't do so well regarding social issues.
Another reason the rich tend to support the Dems is the protection racket. Democrats are the party that demagogues class warfare rhetoric. Supporting them buys a degree of immunity.
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.
