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.
We're either going to have these programs or we're not.
If we have them, there will be a percentage of people that take advantage who probably don't really "need it." In order to determine that, we'd have to spend twice the amount of the benefit on workers whose job it is to determine whether the person "needs it." We already have enough of them.
How many of you know people that don't fully "deserve" the salary they earn at work? Same principle. Some people truly earn their salary, others don't, some did at one time and now don't, others didn't and now do, etc...
I have to second this. We do seem to assume that everyone who's working is really doing their part...well, how many people who are working do just as little as they can? And how many people get hired because of a father or uncle or friend or whoever put in a good word? Why is THAT okay? Well, regardless, it happens. No system is perfect...but we spend a helluva lot of time picking on people who are really getting very little and often for not a very long time.
Haha - I forgot about the hundreds of billions of subsidies going to corporations and big business...all so they can be bothered to hire a few locals because of their tax breaks...
A better question is why breeding should be limited to those who has [have] money. It makes personal economical sense, I'll give you that, but it is a human right to bear a child, even if they can't raise it in the most optimal of conditions. To say otherwise is inhumane, for a lack of better words.
For every right there's a responsibility! You have the RIGHT to have as many rugrats as you want...you then have the RESPONSIBILITY to take care of them on your own without expecting others to pay for your choices!
they shouldn't because it's not RIGHT to impose poverty upon kids. I already SAID this, you can't read? I also already said that it's wrong to burden other people with the raising of YOUR kids. The responsibity of having (and properly raising) those kids is on YOU, and only on you. So if you aint properly fulfill your obligations as a parent, then DONT BE a parent. Get off of other people's backs.
For every right there's a responsibility! You have the RIGHT to have as many rugrats as you want...you then have the RESPONSIBILITY to take care of them on your own without expecting others to pay for your choices!
Referring to children as rugrats doesn't reflect well of your character. Why contempt for children who's only crime is being born? However, let's goto the more salient issue... There are some people in this country that, as you say, behaved irresponsibility, but decided to try and rear the child to the best of their abilities. Others simply fallen on hard times and can't raise their children on the resources they used to draw upon. Whichever the case may be, people sometimes find themselves in position where they can't support their kids without assistance. Some members of this board will be eager to say that this is their own damn fault and we shouldn't help them. I imagine you are part of this camp and I can sympathize, to a degree. However, let's be real here. These kids are out in the world now. What are you going to do with them? If you leave them be, they're going to cost you more in the long run via the crimes they inevitably going to cause, and the loss of human resources if they turned out alright. If we put them in foster care, same thing. If you advocate a purge like scenario, then you just turned America into the worst country on earth. spitting these people hold no net gain, as it cost tax payers money they're never going to see return.
People make bad choices, unfortunately. If we help them back on their feet, it does us all good in the long run. Most people go on welfare for the right reason. By helping them, we're ensuring they're going to remain productive members of society, as well as their kids. They'll pay taxes, do jobs, and may one day perform vital services (You do know the stories of some of these politicians, doctors, and other important people who worked themselves up from humble beginnings right?) If we leave them to rot, we end up with inner city crime rates and nothing but problems, as well as zero return on investment. Ignoring that it is the humane thing to do, it is more economically sound to support these kids. We already do this to an extent with public education as we recognise how essential it is to educate those who can't afford it. We also do this with higher education via loans, as college is priced outside the range of most of america, and we need professionals to remain globally competitive.
With all this said, what do you think? From a pragmatist view and a humane one, it is bests to help those down on their luck. Only a foolish person would advocate leaving these people in the dust. I hope you're not a fool, and I sincerely hope you won't let petty things from keeping you from agreeing with the smartest decision.
they shouldn't because it's not RIGHT to impose poverty upon kids.
Yet, it is fair to deny them life, and deny the mother the right to her body? This is purely ideological, so there isn't a wrong answer.
Quote:
I already SAID this, you can't read?
Where? I'm not shifting through pages to read your lack luster opinions.
Quote:
I also already said that it's wrong to burden other people with the raising of YOUR kids. The responsibity of having (and properly raising) those kids is on YOU, and only on you. So if you aint properly fulfill your obligations as a parent, then DONT BE a parent. Get off of other people's backs.
Did you even bother to proofread this for the glaring contradiction? How can someone not be a parent when they're already a parent? Are you suggesting they abandon their children once they lose the means to support them? Nitpicking aside, read my other, more recent post. It addresses this argument as well as the other person.
A better question is why breeding should be limited to those who has money. It makes personal economical sense, I'll give you that, but it is a human right to bear a child, even if they can't raise it in the most optimal of conditions. To say otherwise is inhumane, for a lack of better words.
Ok, then at least admit that these single poor moms are selfish free loaders. I dare you to.
Ok, then at least admit that these single poor moms are selfish free loaders. I dare you to.
They aren't though. If you think you are, then may your god help you find understanding.
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.
