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.
I would still take the values of the 1930's, your revisionist history withstanding.
People are always so obsessed with race on this forum. The black family was in much better shape in the 30's than it was now. The civil rights and all that has happened would have happened anyway. Giving money to people for doing nothing has completely derailed the progress and development of people who were discriminated against and oppressed by the ignorance of our forefathers.
Their family units were completely destroyed by the well meaning, glad handing idiots in Washington who thought they were actually doing something good. God bless them, but they were wrong.
Human beings are nothing without pride and a sense of accomplishment.
Did you REALLY say that black families were better off in the 1930s than they are today? Where in god's name did you get that propaganda?
Why don't you read and learn some actual American History before you spout off the incorrect information you are using to try to buttress your argument/
Weren't you talking about Christian values or the loss of Christian values? Doesn't it say something in that Christian Bible about "pride goeth before the fall"? Would that mean that pride is ultimately a big pitfall? Where exactly does it say in the Bible that "accomplishment" is the purpose of life on this earth?
AGAIN, there seem to be very, very few actual followers of Christ out there these days. Just followers of "doctrine" they happen to like. Which, of course, does not include love thy neighbor, etc., etc. PRIDE will lead you straight to the place Christians don't want to go.
Do you think Jesus was a "glad-handing idiot" when he helped the poor?
For your enlightenment:
In what has been viewed as multiple acts of resistance,[29] tens of thousands of African Americans left the South annually, especially from 1910–1940, seeking jobs and better lives in industrial cities of the North and Midwest, in a movement that was called the Great Migration. More than 1.5 million people went North during this phase of the Great Migration. They refused to live under the rules of segregation and continual threat of violence, and many secured better educations and futures for themselves and their children, while adapting to the drastically different requirements of industrial cities. Northern industries such as the Pennsylvania Railroad and others, and stockyards and meatpacking plants in Chicago and Omaha, vigorously recruited southern workers. For instance, 10,000 men were hired from Florida and Georgia by 1923 by the Pennsylvania Railroad to work at their expanding yards and tracks.
So feed one hungry person today and create 10 more hungry people in 20 years and then 400 more from that one hungry person you created 40 years later? And on and on and on.
.
What is the basis for your above statement? Is there any study or other source for those numbers?
Feed one hungry person today and there should be one less hungry person on the planet today and possibly one less person who will eventually die of starvation. It think that's only logical.
So 42% of welfare families have two or three kids and one in twelve has four or more kids.
Half of the welfare recipients are in a stable long term-committed relationship with the state with many more single welfare parents of one child just one pregnancy away from committing to long-term wholesale dependency.
Those numbers pale in comparison to the murders and crime of today which are a direct result of welfare and the destruction of the poor people's families by giving them money for doing nothing.
What do you think about the fact that the US has the highest incarceration rate of their citizens of any country in the world? Is that better than the 30's?
Do you know what the percentage of blacks were incarcerated in the 30's as compared to today?
Do you want to keep going?
Show me the study which proves that murder rates and crime rates today are a DIRECT RESULT of welfare and the destruction of poor families by giving them money? Do you have ANY SOURCE to substantiate that claim? Or is this just something you've read on an extreme right-wing web site opinion piece?
There are many reasons for the high incarceration rates in this country. In fact, there is a bill in Congress I believe to reduce the mandatory sentencing guidelines which incarcerate many people who have committed non-violent crimes to YEARS and YEARS in prison. We, as a country, financially cannot afford to continue this pattern.
IMO, the high rate of incarceration of the black population today is still tinged with racism. It's much easier to target the poor communities than it is to target drug ridden areas such as South Beach in Florida. I'm confident that there are more drugs and crime in South Beach by the wealthy than there is in Overtown in Miami.
So your "solution" is to cut off parents and children?
I don't think you're going to be able to put an end to people having sex even if you try to starve these people to death. It is after all a biological imperative. It's my opinion that people have babies because they have unprotected sex, and they have sex often. What makes you think that you can stop a force of nature by punishing people with starvation......do you hope to starve them to death?
Read my post in the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
What would be amazing is an America where people have sex ONLY when they want to have children. Do you really believe most people have sex only in order to have children? SEX is a biological imperative, you know.
So is survival of the fittest. It's called evolution. Do you believe in evolution?
if hunger is such a problem, why are so many poor people fat?
game, set, and match. it's been a pleasure ladies and gentlemen. be sure to tip your waitresses.
here come the "they are fat because they can't afford healthy options" arguments. yeah, because if you gave a poor fat person the choice between mcdonalds and a salad, they'd choose the salad. I love the alternative universe liberals live in.
Very valid point. I've yet to see any justifiable explanation for this.
No. It just doesn't punish their bad behavior. Poor people have been having kids, regardless if there was a welfare system in place. If we erased it tonight, we'd still have the same problem in 10 years.
You gave a different perspective on it. Birth rates were much higher before the welfare programs were stepped up. Do I think the way the welfare programs are being implemented now are a good idea? No. I think there should be more focus on keeping the families together. That being said, the so-called "wrong people" have reproduced in large numbers for a very long time.
Consider this. Brazil doesn't have much of a welfare system. There are alot of street children, alot of violence, and a very high birth rate.
Ironically , the same type of person that poses this question is the same that votes for politicians that want to make abortion illegal, do away with planned parenthood (which provides health care to the poor - and , of course, birth control to the poor).. as well as eliminate birth control from private health insurance policies as well..
So I really don't get it..
If you don't want poor people to get pregnant.. than stop trying to limit their options to prevent it and their option to terminate it when a pregnancy occurs.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
I am not talking about the single mom who needs help after her husband died, but the poor women who has 6 kids, is pregnant with her 7th kid, her first two daughters are pregnant, her son has impregnated a girl at age 17. ect
Do you believe the welfare system rewards the wrong people for the wrong actions and has lead to America becoming a ineptocracy
Ineptocracy
a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
So, what people would you say are the 'right' people to reward for reproducing in large numbers and what rewards would you suggest?
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.
Do you really believe most people have sex only in order to have children? SEX is a biological imperative, you know.
