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.
Well anyway, I find it amusing how again, you take a group that has many dozens of different mitigating factors, pluck out one and jump up and down screaming "this is fact!" That's really not how it works. That is how close minded people think.
Take my father in law. His toilet clogs. He blames his daughter for using too much toilet paper. That is a possible reason for the toilet clogging often for seemingly no reason. But, it's also possible that there is something in the line that needs to be snaked out that causes the abnormal frequency of clogs. I could ignore that there are other possible causes or I can look at the whole picture. One is ignorance, the other is intelligence. We should all aim for the latter.
Sure would be nice if more comments in these threads were about how to better reason rather than not reason at all. Thanks!
More children = more security in one's old age.
Before the socialist safety net, having numerous descendants was old age insurance.
After the socialist safety net, folks figured they'd be supported by "other people's children."
Unfortunately, this triggered a decline in population in socialist nations - wealth notwithstanding.
Now, they're suffering invasion from countries that didn't curb their procreative nature, and will find themselves strangers in their own land.
Socialist nations will be destroyed by their own foolishness.
The future belongs to the descendants.
I think it was nature that first came up with the idea that more off spring leads to better chances of survival for the species, but the confusion between what happens by default with or without the construct of man is common and pretty much impossible to avoid. We can never really know what would otherwise happen if man didn't do all he has tried over time in the name of a better tomorrow...
Reasonably attainable living wages jobs are available. You have to be educated/trained and disciplined, though. Spitting out a bunch of kids you can't afford to support exhibits the presence of NONE of those qualifications.
But yet even the military isn't one of them.
Educated is fine, when we aren't talking about education that costs tens of thousands of dollars...
Here is a real world example:
My son gets a free lunch and breakfast and we get about $200 in stamps. $200 is not going to feed all of us for a month so he needs the help with lunch.
KEY THING: HELP, not a free meal every day forever. When he can pack, then he does. When he can buy, he does.
** and usually he doesnt get the breakfast because its something really unhealthy and i give him cereal or pancakes on the way.
Are you talking about school meals, "really unhealthy?"
I thought that problem had been corrected long ago, at least back to when they banned the sale of soda in vending machines...
I haven't had kids in grade school for a while, but are kids still getting "junk food" in school these days?
I really don't think so. Please don't tell me I'm not wrong about this...
It is too expensive-- yesterday went for a salad-- $6 the hamburger I could have gotten for $1.29 ea. its is cheaper to make carbs and cheap meats. If you have a family- you cannot afford GOOD food at min wage- The McDonald generation came out of convenience, and now that every body is stressed does not sleep works 2/3 jobs - it will continue- but we created the environment. Stop BLAMING poor people-
I am glad they are making fats illegal and making the restaurants have leaner choices- get rid of COKE and it's counterparts - and we no longer eat real food- strawberries injected with what? cows grow by themselves- then go mad--
By the way -LOOK at other nations- and you going to tell me nobody knows how to cook!! an obtuse statement
There are indeed people who have never learned to cook. I have personal experience with folks like that. An example is a young woman with a new baby whose doctor told her she was anemic. Her diet consisted entirely of junk food. I tried to discuss healthier options with her and tell her about local resources she could use to learn how to cook. She had an excuse for not being able to do anything I suggested, all of it free. She never learned to cook because her mother did not cook. She did not work so time was not a consideration. Transportation was not a problem. She just had no motivation at all. Who is creating her malnutrition problem? It's not the fast food industry.
Restaurant food - regardless of its quality - should not be the main source of nutrition for anyone, but even less of an option for someone with limited income. Fast food restaurants are offering healthier options because customers want them. There is no need to get rid of soft drinks. I no longer buy any beverage when I eat out. I choose tap water. What do you think strawberries are injected with? Cows do not "grow by themselves" or "go mad".
There are proposals to encourage people to buy healthier choices, like coupons:
People trapped in minimum wage jobs are often there because they failed to get an education that would provide the skills to earn more - often because they had children before they got that education. Yes, there are people who were doing fine then had setbacks. The welfare system is there to help get them back on their feet, and most, barring those who become disabled due to illness or accident, will do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohky0815
Wait....what? Are you being serious?
Taxes come out of my husbands pay. Taxes come out of my pay. We get a tax return. We pay Federal, State and City.
He has:
Fed withholding
fed med/EE
fed OASD/EE
Oh withholding
Oh blu withholding
oh nor withholding
all listed under his taxes...and im pretty sure my husband is no one special- EVERYONE who has a job pays these.
The taxes may be withheld from your check, but is your refund (is that what you mean by getting a return?) more than what was withheld for all of those taxes? If so, you got back more than you had withheld, so you really did not actually pay any tax for the year. Just having it withheld does not mean you paid it if you got it all back - and more due to credits. The bottom 20% of wage earners in the US do that, due to tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Do you and your husband qualify for that?
"The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes)."
This year a couple filing jointly with income less than $50,198 with two children can get a credit up to $5,572.
thats not true though. There is a limit of assistance for a family. They pay the same as you do.
Yes, there is a limit on TANF, but a working person who qualifies for TANF is not going to be actually paying any tax. Credits will result in a refund that is bigger than the amount of all the taxes withheld (including Medicare and Social Security) for the bottom 20% of workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Having a baby has at least 18 years of side effects. So, I'm not too worried about anyone having side effects with an IUD, or a long-acting hormone shot or implant.
And PAY people to be responsible? There's a hell of a lot of people more responsible than teens not getting pregnant. Do they get paid for being responsible, too?
Some people have true medical contraindications to things like IUDs. There is no way to mandate using them.
It may be cheaper in the long run to pay them. Isn't one of your points that the system rewards having more children?
Then HOW are adults in the situation you describe 33% MORE likely to be obese than poor adults who don't get food stamps? Hmmm...?
Not sure why you don't just link to the other thread where you had me and many others going around in these very same circles revolving around your very favorite topic, but I wonder if you can possibly consider the justification of this statement in bold, "Forty percent of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries were obese during those years, the study found, compared with 32 percent of poor people who didn’t get SNAP benefits and 30 percent of higher-income Americans. The finding doesn’t mean SNAP makes people fat, though the possibility of correlation is something researchers have long explored."
Also to your question, is the answer as provided to you before (who knows how many times in how many different ways) really so hard for you to comprehend and/or accept?
"Slightly more than 55 percent of SNAP participants said they’d had soda the previous day when surveyed by researchers, compared with 48.6 percent of eligible nonparticipants and 49.8 percent of people with higher incomes. Concannon pointed out that a previous study covering the years from 1999 to 2004 showed overall soda consumption at the time was above 64 percent for all groups.
“The overall reduction is across the population,” Concannon said. “We know there’s lots of evidence that sugar-sweetened beverages are almost singular as one of the major contributors to putting on too much weight.”
Concannon said that when a supermarket near his house was handing out free two-liter bottles of soda on a recent day, he accepted one just so he could take it home and pour it out.
SNAP recipients had slightly worse diets overall, but the research shows their diets were healthier in some respects, with less consumption of salty snacks and sweets. Food stamp recipients’ diets scored 56.8 percent on the healthy eating index, compared with 60.3 for eligible non-recipients and 60.2 percent for wealthier people — the difference between an F and a D-minus."
The whole article is worth the read, especially for those more interested in understanding the truth of such matters over pushing political agenda according to predetermined biases the always clouds judgment in pretty much every important respect.
Or, we can solve the problem, rather than just punishing the people at the bottom. Why can't you see passed the end of your nose to that?
Reasonably attainable, living wages should be a right. If it isn't, then the rest of the society has to bare the consequences.
A RIGHT?
You can't be serious...how much is enough is subjective and relative to many variables.
Do you have any understanding of budget management and how that works? If you make X amount you can not exceed expenses of X amount. We learn this in 3rd grade here. How does it not make sense to you? If you don't earn enough to pay for your own children...don't have children...this is such basic _ _ _ _! You can't just keep having children and increasing your overhead and simply covering it by begging me for more. AGAIN, pull your head out! If Jose wants to have children he's got to make more money by getting educated, motivated and assertive...not by standing before me with his sad face and hand out or by forcing companies to convert entry level positions meant for 16 year old's into career jobs for grown low-life adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Reasonably attainable living wages jobs are available. You have to be educated/trained and disciplined, though. Spitting out a bunch of kids you can't afford to support exhibits the presence of NONE of those qualifications.
So simple...well put
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Sure would be nice if more comments in these threads were about how to better reason rather than not reason at all. Thanks!
Face it..unless we say "lets keep blanketing the low-lifes with more and more taxpayer cash to make things easier on them" you won't hear what you want to hear. You spend way too much time working hard to string together intelligent sounding rhetoric...you could easily apply some basic intelligence and understanding to this topic. It's time to stop enabling and advocating for the takers...Build your own destiny and stop stealing from good hard working real Americans...People choose to be low-lifes...this is rudimentary stuff.
Did you ever look into the shopping cart of a food stamp recipient? Mostly junk food.
I remember looking in many a shopping cart of a food stamp recipient back when I worked as a journeyman teller at a major supermarket in a poor area (while going to college). Shameful to think you might be pushing a myth here for who knows what reason, but anyone who has really been on the "front lines" of dealing with food stamps, you know what products can be purchased with them is seriously restricted. Here is that information (not just more BS):
Eligible Food Items
Last Published: 03/21/2016
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
breads and cereals;
fruits and vegetables;
meats, fish and poultry; and
dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.
Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
pet foods
soaps, paper products
household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods
Additional Information
“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:
Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits
What I observed of food stamp recipients is that what remained in their cart after the food stamp items were purchased was not much of anything other than paper products and the likes of those necessary household items. Also having worked as a volunteer at the Food Bank, sugar drinks and junk food are nowhere to be found...
And also, IMO there is no such thing as "bad luck" just poor planning and a lack of common sense. Crap happens, but it happens to everyone. How bad it hits can be minimized with having a Plan B ahead of time or... a savings account, which YOU don't have because of the expenses of having your children.
Simply not true. Ridiculous really...
My good friend lost his job at about the same time his wife contracted MS, still with two kids to raise and feed...
My brother-in-law had a stroke (at my house for Thanksgiving) and lost most function on the left side of his body...
Hard to minimize any of those sorts of problems and challenges with any sort of "Plan B" as you like to dismissively suggest as you do.
Knock on wood, I haven't had anywhere near that sort of "bad luck" that hopefully doesn't happen to everyone.
"Crap happens" to everyone, of course, but equally? Not at all, no more than we are all born with the same advantages and/or disadvantages in life.
Clearly, if you can't recognize these truths, you can't make sense of them either, let alone judge in any intelligent manner as to appropriate and proper public policy.
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.
the hamburger I could have gotten for $1.29 ea. its is cheaper to make carbs and cheap meats. If you have a family- you cannot afford GOOD food at min wage- The McDonald generation came out of convenience, and now that every body is stressed does not sleep works 2/3 jobs - it will continue- but we created the environment. Stop BLAMING poor people- 
