- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
No. Why? Because I know what it's like to get a welfare check. Once you get a job, they don't ween(possibly spelled wean maybe?) you off of it, they just start taking it away. Minimum wage can't cover the expenses of a mother (generally single).And you've reported these people, of course.
My guess is at least 50%.
What does being a "good parent" have to do with being on welfare? Are the two mutually exclusive? If your concern is for providing for the kids, then do you also support taking kids away from parents who are just poor but AREN'T on welfare? Wouldn't INCREASING the amount of government help that the kids get make more sense?
I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up out of thin air, and must have some sociological or economic studies that confirm your theory. I await your evidence.
Unfortunately, too many times, good parent and welfare are mutually exclusive.
Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - June 7, 1995
True, there are not an overbundance of studies relating the two that I could find in a quick search, but go ask any cop where they have the most problems with gangs and jevenile crime, the projects (welfare housing) and welfare areas. Welfare girls are also far more likely to become a teen parent. I have seen this over and over in different towns/cities I have lived in.
As to those who are just poor and not on welfare, either they should apply for assistance or they are simply mismanaging their money. I have absolutely no problem with assistance to working poor families, just the non-working ones. If those children are being neglected because of poor money management, the parents should be counseled on money management and then if the problem continues, then hell yes, take the kids. Illegals in this country don't seem to have as much problem feeding and taking care of their kids as many legal residents do and they make a hell of a lot less.
Oh dear, someone actually using their brain and coming up with a possible solution to a problem. True, the economic part of it is conjecture based upon the fact the military has always found it cheaper to feed troops in mass than to pay them for food individually. But then, buying bulk is cheaper, go to Sams Club, if you want the best price per amount, buy the biggest package, of course if you have a few to feed, this doesn't always work, but in a group home doing large meals, it would save in overall costs.
Parents still love their children even when they aren't able to take care of them properly. Children love their parents, too.
The bond between parent and child is the strongest that there is, in fact.
Is love important?
Or is the most efficient way of feeding children the only consideration?
The drug testing for welfare was a feel good thing,
To you, which is more reprehensible?
When you say making a million a year, do you mean before or after taxes?
Even with taxes, you shouldn't complain.
Yes you should, if a significant portion of it is going to welfare, then move it offshore and hide it.
$131.9 billion a year is insignificant in context with the massive expenses that add onto our debt such as pointless decade long conflicts.
Good thing we don't engage in pointless conflicts then. It is never pointless to engage against and fight evil. I have to admit, although not pointless, they were badly managed. The mistakes made weren't that we did it, but how we went about doing it.
To you, which is more reprehensible?
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
Iraq was unnecessary. However, if I got reactivated back into Service for the purpose of going there, I would do it without question. However, I will be asking for an M1097 contact truck as compensation for my Service. The Army won't cough it up, but I'll still demand it.
Having spent many days over a decade of time deploying to enforce no fly zones over Iraq because he attacked civilians (used poison gas on at least one village) because of "religious" differences. I was glad we finally went ahead and took the bastard out. He was, undoubtedly evil. I don't in anyway consider Iraq unecessary, just way too late in coming. Maybe it's the fact that he on occasion over that decade long span shot at myself and others doing our jobs that made it personal. All because we wouldn't let him gas his own people or bomb civilians.
If it was to kill a bad guy who was persecuting his people, we should have invaded North Korea. Saddam didn't have **** on Jong Il's reign of terror. People get put into concentration camps for eating the wrong bowl of rice over there, regardless of their beliefs.
Why is that?
I don't believe the ends justified the means at all. Over a million deaths, just to topple a crooked regime. I can't get behind such an inefficient wast of life, even though I was fully prepared to go. The Army had other plans for me, though.I agree, but I don't get to make the decisions. I really didn't give a damn what made the politicians finally make the right decision, even if it was for wrong reasons, I just knew I was helping take out one evil bastard and that was all that mattered to me, still all that matters to me about the initial invasion.
Having spent many days over a decade of time deploying to enforce no fly zones over Iraq because he attacked civilians (used poison gas on at least one village) because of "religious" differences. I was glad we finally went ahead and took the bastard out. He was, undoubtedly evil. I don't in anyway consider Iraq unecessary, just way too late in coming. Maybe it's the fact that he on occasion over that decade long span shot at myself and others doing our jobs that made it personal. All because we wouldn't let him gas his own people or bomb civilians.
I have. It is not a choice. It is not a fabulous life. It sucks; it's awful; it is no choice that anybody makes.
Was saddam evil when we supported him in the war against Iran, or did he become evil later?
Why were you in that position? Was there no jobs where you were? Was it lack of skills to get a better job?
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?