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.
This is still going on? WOW. AeroGuyDC throws out this bait what yesterday and the arguing STILL rages on. Its not even a debate for Christs sake. Sheesh.
wic helped for about 2 yrs when we then made enough to go off it......They were somewhat suprised when we told them we didn't need it anymore though.....
WIC started as a nutrition program so it wasn't only for the poor. It has evolved to where mostly the poor take advantage of it.
I would agree , if you can't afford kids you should not have them. When I drive through poor areas. I wonder what possesses someone to bring a child into the poverty the parents live in... just doesn't seem fair to me.
I have always thought that support should drop if more children are added to a welfare family. That would stop the unwanted pregnancies. when there is a perceived profit from another kid, people will continue to produce them.
Sorry, but I do have a life outside of C-D! And I told you I'd be working late tonight... just got home, and on top of that I've had a horrible cold for the last 4-5 days.
Not much left to say anyway, after 50 pages of bickering over whether or not poor people should have kids - and whether their children should have access to food once they're here. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but apparently not to everyone.
By definition, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to get pregnant and immediately get in line for WIC food assistance! That IS proof in and of itself!!
I'll not respond further until you get your facts straight.
You mean, the FACTS people have pointed out to assert that not everybody "immediately gets in line for WIC?" The FACT that some people are financially okay when they have the child, and 1-5 years later fall on hard times (or lose their spouse through death or divorce)? Guess you didn't catch those little facts.
Just because you want something doesn't mean you should be able to get it at everyone elses expense and consider it to be an OK thing to do. I am for safety nets, but not for people planning their lives with the idea in mind of living on handouts. You don't have to be rich to have children and support them yourselves. Most of the poor families I know don't have one or two they have 5 or 6 kids. Where do you draw the line?
Of course we don't want people planning to take government assistance, but how many actually do that? Don't most families hope and eventually expect to better their situations - or at least set up their children for success? Just saying you never know what they WILL become, and short-term assistance is designed to help people achieve independence.
Regardless, I think you're implying that birth restrictions should be placed on the less fortunate, and I simply cannot support such a concept. Does China ring a bell? Not sure where the compromise could be, since this situation is basically an "all or nothing" kind of deal... gotta take the good with the bad, and I personally am okay with that (considering the minor costs of maintaining WIC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocontengencies
I can't speak for Aero, but if they don't have any birth control than I think they shouldn't have sex. It really is that simple. And if you are too poor or not smart enough to take a walk to the store and buy a condom, then you absolutely shouldn't have kids.
Shouldn't, I agree. But those are precisely the people who ARE having children at high rates, because....... lack of education + limited finances = unplanned pregnancy. Bazinga!
Oh, ANOTHER "you live there so..." comment. Are you the one making them all? I've seem like 5 in the last 2 days. All of them about CA and The Bay Area specifically.
This is the first one for me, Ceece. And I jest. I'm a Californian and have good, conservative Catholic friends in San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
People are people WP..no matter where they live. There are liberals ON YOUR STREET! And conservatives on mine.
There are no liberals on my "street" (actually a rural county road). There are ... let's see ... 15 people on my street, and 8 of them live in my house. The others are ordinary Jeffersonian country folk who eat liberals for breakfast.
Children won't starve because you are presuming that some other part of society will step up. You don't mind someone else stepping up. You just don't want to step up yourself. That attitude is akin to "let them eat cake". Because you base your position on the assumption that someone else will take care of the problem. And the reality is that that simply isn't always true. Sometimes there isn't someone else to take care of the problem. Sometimes children do starve. Sometimes children get abandoned. Sometimes children become ill because of malnutrition. Out of the "checks" you send, maybe a few pennies go to feed hungry children. And you're such a humanitarian you begrudge that.
Bad parents won't feed their kids no matter how much money they get.
That's a fact!
Proof of that is the fact that schools have breakfast and lunch programs for those who "qualify". What the hell are food stamps paying for?
Why are we the taxpayers responsible for even $.01 to rebuild and feed and aide foreign countries? I rather feed those here at home.
I am against that probably much more than you.
Why do lefties assume that because we constitutional conservatives are against welfare programs that we're for other illegal spending?
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.
Not sure where the compromise could be, since this situation is basically an "all or nothing" kind of deal... gotta take the good with the bad, and I personally am okay with that (considering the minor costs of maintaining WIC).
