Oh man this makes me really sad...
To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.
So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?
Oh man this makes me really sad...
To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.
So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?
Oh man this makes me really sad...
To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.
So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?
what do you do for the poor, specifically?
If you dish it out, you should be able to take it. And yes, we need to agree on what is and is not "nutritious" and making an assumption that this is common knowledge not needing to be defined is disingenuous at best.
To remind you - you said:
Sure... you made a blanket statement:
You didn't say "some Poor people" you stated as fact... and therefore you placed yourself in the position of speaking for all poor people. I'm just saying you're not so don't assume and generalize all poor people. Some poor people may not be making an effort, and some poor people don't care about their kids at all.
Generalizations are a bad idea in all cases.
Correct. I mention that in post #104 and #105.
I don't see DYFS as being a throw the baby out scenario. I find it an alternative method to allow parents time to get on their feet, and puts the children in a temporary home where they can get all the necessities they deserve. However, I also stated in this thread how tools must be provided so the poor can help themselves. Those who do not want to help themselves are parasites and should, after a period of time (I mentioned a cap on the amount of time assistance should be provided) should be cut off from getting any State assistance.
My overall view is welfare and this type of assistance at a Federal level is un-Constitutional, which I discussed and disagreed with SouthernDemocrat who felt that the courts have upheld it so far, therefore it's Constitutional.
I know what I said and I stand by it as correct. It has nothing to do with dishing out anything. Your statement was not well thought out.
I am pretty certain 99.9% of the people posting here don't need good nutrition defined for them.
"The article did not say they were not getting feed, it did say the only "nutritious " meal of the day.
Someone mentioned the price of Mac & Cheese and Raman. The sodium content alone should scare people away from that. Not to mention very little if any nutritional value for a growing child.
The problem here is not about a lack of food, but nutritional food. I know from experiance nutrtious food is freaking exspencive.
My doctor put me on the South Beach Diet. Before that diet we spent about $400.00 a month to feed ourselves. After the diet started or food budget ballooned to almost double. I can't even imagine in this economy and being poor trying to feed a child a healthy diet.
More is at play here than just irresponsible parents. - Blackdog Post #103
Please feel free to point out where I made this statement that I am speaking for all poor people?
Blackdog said:Poor people trying to provide for the children, who are making an effort should not lose them because they need a little help.
Blackdog said:You were not responding to me, you were responding to people who brought up your statements as well. So what? Has nothing to do with my original reply to you.
Next time, you need to read more than just your replies. Other people have had good points in this thread...Blackdog said:I agree with you here, but again you did not mention this the first time.
Excellent - we leave this discussion on a positive note!Blackdog said:I think it is unconstitutional as well.
I certainly support expecting people to be personally responsible. But expecting them to be personally responsible, when they cannot help themselves, whether or not it is their fault (when you are helpless, fault no longer matters, at least in domestic situations like this), is an evil act. Personal responsibility and societal welfare are two sides of the same coin, to go totally one way or the other way is wrong.
However to answer your question where to draw the line. I think it is impossible to answer because every situation has different details. This is one of the reasons its so easy to fight about welfare. It allows everyone to project their own personal views onto someone they have seen on society because that is what they are already sensitive too.
IMO, this thread is riddled with willful ignorance and callous indifference --
Nothing wrong with callous indifference when your own government is shoving a machine gun in your face and telling you the cost of your sympathetic concern for your neighbor's well being has increased and you have to pay more money.
Does it not concern you people that the public schools are only feeding these starving children at the most one, maybe two meals a day for 180 days per year? It doesn't bother you that if their parents can't afford to feed them on snow days, they are going hungry on the 185 days that they aren't scheduled to be in school?
That's what I never understood about the school passing out condoms to school kids as if they only had sex during the school week and who dutifully abstained on the weekends and holidays and over the summer vacation.
Maybe, just maybe, there is room to demand that parents take care of their kids or arrange for somebody else to do so? I would rather kids be fed every day and not just when they are in school.
Well, we're talking about State funding here, not Federal funding. States do not directly fund the U.S. military so I'll disagree to your reasoning of "foreign wars". States are not funded by the Federal Government for DYFS, that's part of the States responsibility, so if they are overworked and underfunded - the reason is not because of foreign wars but because of State prioritization of funds or lack thereof.
But I agree they ARE overworked and under funded at the State level. So why is that and what are we the people going to do about it? My view is to actually CUT lunch, food stamp and welfare services --- take some of that money and put it towards DYFS at the State levels or allow any federal funding of welfare programs to be used by the States as they see fit. Not cut entirely but put caps on the length of time and put oversight on them to curb abuse. Family's who live off the government must be motivated to become part of society and not a parasite living off the government host.
I agree with this but your not going to find anyone that will support the position.
That's what sucks about any of our similar beliefs, no one will seriously support it once they get in their congressional seats.
You don't know much about how state and federal funding are intertwined do you? Let's just say less is coming from the federal level which means less to available at the state level. That's one of the main reasons costs are going up for the states. Eisenhower has a famous quote on what military spending does for the average American. You might want to look it up. But I'll bet even he didn't think we'd be stupid enough to spend a trillion dollars on some sandbox war we didn't need to be in.
BTW there's already all kinds of caps and the length of time people can be on welfare, unemployment etc. You really need to get out there and educate yourself. In my state you have to apply for jobs every week or you don't collect unemployment. End of story. And welfare isn't a free ride. There's a time limit.
No they don't. Hence nutritional facts printed on packaged foods by law.
Sure it's the part you cut out of the post which I pointed out to you. Want me to post it again? Apparently you DON'T know what you said...
Try reading the entire post and not just one's where you're insulting others.
Believe it or not, all my comments don't all come out at once - discussion sometimes makes us think more, and we add comments after the original comments.
Next time, you need to read more than just your replies. Other people have had good points in this thread...
Excellent - we leave this discussion on a positive note!
It's broader than just food... kids won the lunch program are a symptom of a larger issue which is the level of poverty. I suggest cutting the lunch program but the support for getting the family on their feet must be part of that cut or else we'll just be kicking poor people when they're down. Give them tools to better themselves so kids food or foodstamps no longer is the issue and will no longer be needed.
Cuts and identifying parasites shouldn't be carried out unless we can help those who want the help, out of their predicament.
Machine gun?
Hyperbole much?
:roll:
Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.
Yet conservatives are more likely to give to charity.
Because conservatives tend to be more dogmatic and will give more as It is their pass into the great blue sky
But for the record-there are plenty of Pagan Based org too. It is not like the right owns the right to help people and find those on the left do it for more of the right reasons.
What happens to people who don't pay their taxes?
If they try to hide money and mislead authorities, they may be looking at some time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?