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 way war on poverty is handled today is more like a riot tax. Give enough to keep them calm, but not enough to actually help.
If there was a true war on poverty, then after the recession you'd see a bunch of CEOs and bankers who caused it going to prison and their money going to those who lost their homes.
And in times of crisis like Covid, the poor wouldn't fall deeper while the rich get off unscathed and get bailed out.
The rich control politicians. That's the problem. Remove that, and tax the mfers.
So you want the same politicians who ****ed it up and pissed away $30T in the process to be in charge of War on Poverty v2?
Again, Einstein had a word for something like that.
I didn't say any such thing. You said people should pay for their own kids, like the couple in the story were leeches, or something. The people in the article are GRANDPARENTS who took on the kids, because the parents are drug addicts that can't take care of children. The grandparents appear to be doing the best they can to give the children a decent life, despite having parents that are not capable of raising them. The grandparents will probably get by without the tax credit, but it's the kids who suffer. What do you think the grandparents ought to do when the parents of the children are drug addicts?
If they can't afford to raise the kids, there's always the foster system. And maybe they should cut back on the acting/ballet lessons?
Did the grandparents seriously rely on a temporary tax credit to make ends meet?
I didn't say any such thing. You said people should pay for their own kids, like the couple in the story were leeches, or something. The people in the article are GRANDPARENTS who took on the kids, because the parents are drug addicts that can't take care of children. The grandparents appear to be doing the best they can to give the children a decent life, despite having parents that are not capable of raising them. The grandparents will probably get by without the tax credit, but it's the kids who suffer. What do you think the grandparents ought to do when the parents of the children are drug addicts?
The grandparents will have to find a charity.
The only way government has to give money to someone it is to take it from someone else by force (threat of violence) .
49% of women having abortions live below the Federal poverty line. Another 25% are living on 101-199% of the Federal poverty level. That pretty much makes poor women the majority of women having abortions.
Mandate sterilization for deadbeat parents. If you refuse no more money. Also take away the right to vote if you can't support yourself. If you wish to vote you must get off the dole for 6 months and then you can apply again. The thing is these type of parents are the worst role models out there.
Did you not notice that it's the GRANDPARENTS raising the kids because the parents are drug addicts?
Your voting suggestions would be unconstitutional. As are the sterilization demands.
Did you not notice that it's the GRANDPARENTS raising the kids. The parents are drug addicts.
If they adopt the kids, they'll get social security increases for them.
I have friends in a similar situation. One came out of retirement and the other put off retiring because their daughter decided she 'just couldn't do it anymore'. Waited until the grands were done with college and now they've retired.
I don't understand . . . is this article supposed to make people feel sorry for this guy and his family? That he can't engage in expensive extracurricular activities for his children without the government's dime? You have some people struggling to keep a roof over people's heads and this article highlights the "struggles" of this family not being able to pay for the Girl Scouts, ballet, and acting lessons? Talk about tone deaf.
The people in the article are GRANDPARENTS who are raising the kids because the parents are drug addicts. They are probably on a limited income, and were trying to give the kids something extra. That's going away. They sound philosophical about it, and will presumably continue to do their best to raise the kids.
identify those families that are doing a good job with the kids - not in trouble, doing well in school, no signs of abuse - and pay them extra money.
Then put the rest of the kids - where the parental bond is broken - into adoptive or group homes.
Do we as a country have the infrastructure currently to properly care and provide adequate opportunities for those children where the parental bind is broken?
I'm just asking, not from any position of judging or feeling superior. I have not had children in part because I don't think I could do a good job of it (other reasons, too, but this is the main reason I don't take on fosters).
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.
You have some people struggling to keep a roof over people's heads and this article highlights the "struggles" of this family not being able to pay for the Girl Scouts, ballet, and acting lessons? Talk about tone deaf.
