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.
Is that sustainable? Will the 49% who actually pay any federal income tax be able to afford to keep paying more and more to financially support an exponentially growing chronically poor class? And how "moral" or "kind" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor? What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why would any country do that to its own children? Why is incentivizing an increasingly larger poverty class Democrat/liberal policy?
Welfare programs make it easy and profitable for irresponsible people to bear child after child with NO thought whatsoever to providing for that child, guiding that child to adulthood, and helping that child develop his/her potential so they can be contributing members of society. Those children are nothing but freebie factories for the poor.
What do you propose? Forced steralization? I think the Nazi's looked into that...
If the kids are still hungry after WIC, Food Stamps, TANF and free food in school then the parents need to be charged with abuse and the kids taken away from them. There's also food pantries all over the US.
Adding a new food program to the mix is not fixing anything. If a parent is not taking care of their kids then charge the parents and take the kids away.
Stop playing these games already. No one should be going hungry in America with all that we offer in programs.
The problem is not hunger or lack of food. The problem is child abuse at the hand of parents that don't give a damn.
The problem is personal irresponsibility and the fact that bearing more children gets the parents more freebie benefits.
I've seen and talked to kids who have told me if it wasn't for the free breakfast and free lunch at school they would have very little if nothing to eat. Living with crack mama and no dad, their situation in AMERICA is appalling. I'm no liberal and hate all these government handouts, but if we cannot help our children, then as a society we are doomed.
I've seen the same. Why are these parents not charged with child abuse ?
It seems we turn a deaf ear to this and don't see what's right in front of your eyes.
But have a middle class parent slap their kid on the legs in Target and you don't hear the end of it "child abuse", "take the kids away from them". But it's ok if poor people deny food to their kids. That's not child abuse ?
Why do we let these people get away with not feeding their kids ? Because they're poor, maybe minorities ? Not feeding your kids is child abuse, pure and simple.
What do you propose? Forced steralization? I think the Nazi's looked into that...
Do you think an exponentially growing welfare class is sustainable?
Wages for no/low-skill workers are depressed enough now as it is because we foolishly allow illegal immigration. Add an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class on top of that and what do you think is going to happen?
The problem is personal irresponsibility and the fact that bearing more children gets the parents more freebie benefits.
The problem is that when this topic comes up..hungry children..the cry is usually for another government program or expanded funding for current programs.
If those kids aren't getting fed with all the programs we have today then they won't get fed tomorrow with new programs because the problem is not money.
Hungry is hungry....It isn't a my d*ck is bigger than yours. If children don't know where the next meal will come from...thats a problem. We are the most technologically advanced nation in the world. We have the resources to handle this issue....we don't need drones that roam the skies and drop bombs in the tailgate of a 1989 Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup truck from 15k feet in the air on some imbred moron in Yemen with a pistol.
Ask any veteran social worker and they will tell you we need to take kids away from and sterilize about 0.5% of the population and a huge amount of social problems would disappear.
The whole pesky constitution prevents this however.
My cousin is a veteran social worker with at-risk kids and he has stated that there are about 4 families in their county that literally are involved in a huge percentage of crime, drugs, abuse etc etc etc. I mean, the officers know those families and their various members better than most people know their spouses family.
Another family in a county near where I grew up was so notorious that when there was a drive-by shooting in town A....police would search for the car between there and the house of the family in town B....since it was almost certainly one of those family members.
Good luck fixing the problem when the primary caregivers of those kids are utter scum and you can't easily get them out of the picture.
The problem is that when this topic comes up..hungry children..the cry is usually for another government program or expanded funding for current programs.
If those kids aren't getting fed with all the programs we have today then they won't get fed tomorrow with new programs because the problem is not money.
Yes. Bearing uncared for children is an income factory for irresponsible welfare-dependent adults. They get more benefits and the kids still go hungry.
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.
