again we are not talking about people who fell on hard times ,I dont know why you keep bringing that up, no one has said those that fell on hard times doesn't need help or should get help.

Has that poster Eastwest mentioned anything about people falling on hard times?

has mikey, blondey or anyone else including myself said anything about those in hard times not deserving help ? the poster Tom gave us an example of himself that fell on hard times has anyone criticized him for getting help which is what its for?

We are talking about actual welfare cheats scumbags that do and some of us gave you examples of the scumbags.

if you're poor and you barely can feed yourself you have no business bringing someone in the world.

Yes that is harsh but is the truth .

You could drive a brand new car as long as you were making payments. You couldn't have a 10 year old clunker that was paid for. If I remember correctly, it couldn't be worth over $500 and they valued the car at $2500.
A friends niece was living off her parents driving a new car and receiving welfare.

Good Grief, Jesus wept????.. if he had to pay the cost.. he would

Not about the children MS.. you miss the point.. again. Nobody here would deny children .. anything. Its about the decision the two people who brought them into the world made. The majority of the time a teenage girl and some " baby Daddy" And their INABIITY to raise them financially. over and over and over again. Its about those people abusing the system. Not the kids. And it is a HUGE problem. So, don't act like it isn't.. o.k..

Don't spin it to where ANYONE here said they would deny kids. Because that was never said.. by anyone

So here's something very non PC

If you can't raise them, and financially care for them.. or have no intensions of being in their live... then don't *****ing have them in the first place.

use a friggin condom

lol... okay.


I had a used car paid for. and the limit was $5,000.

sounds like alot of subjectivity. I dont know how HUGE a problem it is. Kids make stupid choices and have kids, yes. And? after that, they cant undo it, and people are suggesting just cut them (and by extension) their kids off because they are not gainfully employed? It is about the kids. Sorry.

Adults also enter into commitments that can fall apart later, jobs that can end, and any number of different scenarios from the birth of a CHILD to the the time they are no longer a dependent. and we should cut them off becuase of hard times, and by extension let the kids just suffer the consequence?


I only wish people were complaining as hard about what working wages are in comparison to cost of living, as they are about people struggling to take care of children.

what did you say to me? you dont HAVE to say it, the thread is full of ASSUMPTIONS about whether ones hard times are ACTUALLY hard times. people being judged by everything from where they go when they arent at work (protest or movies or rallys or whatever), or whether they are abusing the system to allow their kids to have simple snacks, or if they had a frigging tv or video games.

the judgment of what dignifies 'hard times' to the satisfaction of others, is crystal clear.

.


, Dear Lord in heaven...

The problem with the left is your definition of poverty, you folks believe poverty is about material possession or lack there of, we consider poverty is lack of basic human necessities, food, water, shelter, clothing, the ability sustain life.

Government insults us with their "poverty line" because to them its about material possessions.


We on the right label poverty differently, a person like a homeless person assuming they are not mentally unstable , with no roof over their head, barely eating 3 meals a day if they are not picking through garbage, lacking basic hygiene , that is poverty.

Not the person sitting in subsidized housing with their cell phones , access to the net, food stamps, and some can afford to get a car , an old beat up car but still a car.

That isn't poverty, that is a person of less means , or as we say have less than less

It used to be have and have not, now its Have, have not, have less, and have less than less so you owe me more.

no wonder people from other countries want to come to America, poor people marvel at the arrogance of some Americans, only in America where a poor person can be fat, every other 2nd and 3rd world country poor people are skinny and thinner than thin.

Fat in poor countries means your prosperous .

I don't understand why they put obese people on feed the children commercial. I will let them rent my kids for the commercial.

Maybe its time another " million man march?"

The march has never been held on the 1st of the month... interesting.

Bahaha

Don't forget the Duggars. 19 kids and counting. That woman doesn't have a vagina, she has a clown car.

The true irony of this topic is that most of the people complaining, are probably pro-fetus.

rather than wishing .. curious if you are personally doing anything to help the struggling children . If you had the power ..What change to welfare policy would you make .

She seems to be avoiding the issues. The reason I said tubes should be tied on the 2nd welfare baby is because kids make mistakes. But when they make a mistake, they are still a mom. They choose to throw their teenage lives away.
One of the teenage mom's at Honda was volunteering for ot and saving for a house like she was supposed to do. The other's were clubbing and dumping the babies off on family. It resulted in being pregnant again. It's clear by baby #2, that they aren't taking responsibility. There shouldn't be a 2nd baby on tax payers dime and that's where the line should be drawn.

A minimum living benefit issued to EVERYONE, rich or poor, will shut up the "why not me too" and the "I don't want to pay for that . . . " people, and will also get the rorters off the couch to find more income if they want more stuff, or better conditions.

If any government corporation can afford to supply its members with subsidised food in their cafeterias, alcohol for its meetings and 'functions', free air travel to spruik for their own party, and so many other benefits they receive because they are in 'the government', and are 'important', then they can and should afford to do the same for everyone else. (Not the alcohol and air travel of course, but you get my drift.)

Take away the 'us and them' attitude, and have an even playing field.

Many 'western' societies are subsidised by the the method they acquired the land they are on to start with. Did the indigenous first nations peoples get a fair deal in the exchange of "land ownership" or sovereignty, extremely rarely, so the society is dependent on freeloading (land theft, genocide, concentration camps - reservations) from the start. Check your history.

I know of an 'alcoholic' on a pension because he is an alcoholic. As long as he maintains his alcoholism he is on benefits. The gov't tests him to make sure he is still an alcoholic !

Another I know of another who faked a car accident and is on benefits. He is regularly tested to make sure he takes his pills; unfortunately for him the medications are now causing him real medical problems, but he can't stop otherwise his fraud will be exposed. Sucked in !

I personally went for a new job and the manager asked me how much I wanted to be officially paid (for the taxation declaration), and the remainder was paid in cash so working people could still collect benefits. I didn't take him up on the offer and got a legit' job elsewhere.

There are uncountable other examples of which just a few are mentioned here.

Societies do need safety nets because not everyone is born into a well off family, or in a profitable state, or gets a decent education, or is always medically fit for work, and so on.
Children, elderly, and the sick do not deserve to have to compete equally with everyone else for a place to shelter, food to eat, and medical attention to live. And if you work for a corporation of any type long enough, you deserve a pension when you get old.

'Government' bureaucracies could easily check and test for people abusing their failing systems, but to do that would expose their failed systems. They don't want to look bad, so they only go for the easy options of chasing the people who have slipped up and got caught by their own paperwork or tax records etc., or were seen doing something and dobbed in by an informer, or TV current affairs show. Blame your government for letting them get away with it.

At the other extreme, forced labour camps and national conscription for anyone not working is inhumane; and didn't many allies fight wars to ensure that that fate (usually) didn't happen to their people ?

Even if you have a baby as teenager, most parents have ins on the teenager. I noticed the girls that were clubbing rarely/never mentioned their mother. It's was grandma they talked about. Not taking care of their kids must run in the family.
The mom who volunteered for ot and saving for a house, lived with her parents. They were both police officers.
Baby #2 shouldn't be born on welfare because the mom should have found a stable job with benefits by then.
As a teenager I worked flipping burgers. After I graduated, I got a real job with benefits and wages a lot higher than minimum wage. It's part of becoming an adult.

Are any of the Duggars on welfare?

It seems that head Duggar fella has a net worth north of 3.5 million dollars.

You can have as many kids you want if you can afford them in my opinion.

Before they bred their way into a TV show, (now canceled), Jim Bob was a County Commissioner, so yes his 17 spawn at the time were being supported off the government tit.

Reminds me of the old nursery rhyme: "There were some people that lived in a shoe, they had so many kids, they couldn't stop the older brother from sexing his little sisters."

Growing up in a Irish neighborhood in NYC every family had 6 or more kids. There were 8 kids in my family. Everyone's father was a longshoreman, cop, fireman or sanitation. No family had money to spare and at times money was very very tight. But we had food, clean cloths, a clean house and we were taught to... work... and the Dads.. did what Dads should do... supported the children they brought into this world.

I do not recall one family.. not one collecting benefits from the Government

If you can support them.. you can have as many as you want.