Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Say Food Stamp Cuts Could Cause Higher Healthcare Costs
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Lauran Neergaard writes at the Christian Science Monitor that doctors are warning that if Congress cuts food stamps, the federal government could be socked with bigger health bills because over time the poor wind up seeking treatment in doctors' offices or hospitals as a result. 'If you're interested in saving health care costs, the dumbest thing you can do is cut nutrition,' says Dr. Deborah Frank of Boston Medical Center, who founded the Children's HealthWatch pediatric research institute. 'People don't make the hunger-health connection.' Food stamps feed 1 in 7 Americans and cost almost $80 billion a year, twice what it cost five years ago. The doctors' lobbying effort comes as Congress is working on a compromise farm bill that's certain to include food stamp cuts. Republicans want heftier reductions than do Democrats in yet another partisan battle over the government's role in helping poor Americans. Conservatives say the program spiraled out of control as the economy struggled and the costs are not sustainable. However research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger in an increase of $15 billion in medical costs (PDF) for over the next decade. Other research shows children from food-insecure families are 30 percent more likely to have been hospitalized for a range of illnesses. 'Food is medicine,' says Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern, who has led the Democrats' defense of the food stamp program. 'Critics focus almost exclusively on how much we spend, and I wish they understood that if we did this better, we could save a lot more money in health care costs.'"
$2 billion/year x 10 years = $20 billion > $15 billion
I'm pretty tolerant of articles for slashdot, but this seems really far off subject.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Perhaps if they ate healthful vegetarian meals, they wouldn't have to worry of all the health repercussions associated with food stamps. I lived with a guy three years ago who was on food stamps. He bought steak while I was eating ramen. His wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/whatever gave him money, and he went out and got CANDY all the time. He was a diabetic. Sat on his butt all day and ate candy and steak on my tax dollars and still was smoking a pack every other day.
Or you could go my route and spend $5/day (for one person) and eat collards, rice, beans, etc. Been unemployed for several months and still looking.
I see 350 lbs. people buying ding dongs and orange drink with their food stamps. how much does the healthcare for a person 200 lbs. overweight cost?
...from a "Dollar amount" to specifics foods or types of food. No $$$, just "Bag of apples/fruit", "Vegetables", "Loaf of Bread", "Milk", "Orange/Apple Juice", etc.
Perhaps have specific Food Stamp distribution centers instead of just about any old store accepting them. Take out the choice and lower the direct fraud (once they get the food from the program, there's not much you can do to stop them selling it if they choose, unless we just set up meal kitchens instead of food stamp, although that has it's appeal as well.)
The article actually states the $15 billion is the estimated savings on diabetes alone. The total saving would be far higher.
I like how they compare $2 billion a year could cost $15 billion over a decade, or $16 billion cuts over a decade could cost $15 billion over the same time frame.
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint, the argument does not make sense. Also, if the rate of increase continues, then in the same 10 years, the cost could be 320 billion, which far eclipses the 15 billion in health care costs (which is also an oversimplification).
Growing up, I always thought that the goal of civilisation was to alleviate suffering.
On economic grounds, it will cost net $500 million more per year (($2B x 10 - $15B) / 10) to keep people in adequate nutrition. By US budget standards, that's pissing in the ocean.
On humanitarian grounds, there is no question that the money must be allocated.
If society's job isn't to improve the lot of humanity, it has no purpose. If we look only at ourselves, we are no better than apes.
remove health care from jobs and there will be more them. As well getting rid of the no ot for salary worker or having some like a high min pay level say 100K+ + COL to be able to no pay ot
For years places have been useing salary workers working 50-60-80 hours to cover having less workers over all.
Your multi-billion dollar business go under? Get a huge bailout from taxpayers.
Have five kids with four different fathers? Taxpayers will cover your kids' entire upbringing.
Your bank cause a market crash? Taxpayers are forced to cover your corruption.
Stopped looking for work for a few years? Here's free food and housing courtesy of taxpayers.
"Food stamps feed 1 in 7 Americans and cost almost $80 billion a year, twice what it cost five years ago".
So we've doubled the amount of money we spend on food stamps and we have record numbers of Americans that rely on the government for their food. I wonder which way the vote. When you don't work and get your income from the government (who gets its money from taxpayers) then there is no incentive to look for work. Have some kids, collect some checks, and don't ever look for work. And with all the unemployment and record food stamp usage both parties are now talking about letting millions of illegal immigrants into this country and legalizing the ones that are already here.
And of course cue the screaming. "Corporate welfare is worse than individual welfare". They are both a major drain on society. And individual welfare is now a record drain. There's no incentive to succeed anymore. There's no incentive for personal responsibility. You can have six kids out of wedlock and be rewarded by the state with free food and housing. This happens on such a massive scale that we lose billions annually creating a system that encourages broken homes, unwanted children, and bastard children with no future as productive citizens.
Put everybody on food stamps! That should reduce 15 billion in healthcare costs for every 2 billion more in food stamps we spend. Perfect solution.
The things people will do and say to toe their party line.
Flat out ridiculous. This system is full of abuse/fraud and needs to be addressed, as do most other government 'programs'.
From the linked PDF: "Thus, diabetes costs alone could nearly equal CBO’s estimate of $20 billion in savings over 10 years from implementing proposed SNAP changes in H.R.1947, in addition to any costs associated with other diseases."
I currently get food stamps and they provide the entirety of my food budget. I am well educated and know my way around a kitchen so I can keep myself fit and healthy for well under the $187/month I get. But if I wanted, I could buy candy, coke, and chips and try and live off of that. If you are on food stamps you can NOT simply rely on prepackaged heat and serve meals - you'll either run out of money or not get the nutrition you need. You need to focus on the basics: beans, rice, lentils, fresh fruits and veggies, and only occasionally some raw chicken (forget your love affair with beef, its too expensive). In my view, the problem is with education rather than money. Teach people how to cook and what to cook and they'll be healthy. Barrage them with ads for canned raviolis and Doritos and you'll get people who think that cooking simply involves heating things up. The food stamp program needs to be revised so that you are prohibited from purchasing junk foods just like alcohol or cigarettes can't be bought. In addition to restricting crap foods, allow people to purchase things like vitamins, toothpaste, and toilet paper with their food stamps. Being on food stamps is not fun, but for many people it is not a choice (the elderly or disabled) so lets make the program actually work for the benefit of those who receive the money.
I'm somewhat shocked that 1 in 7 american's is dependent on foodstamps to get by...
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
You're telling me that the people who use food stamps spend it on healthy items like fruit or oatmeal? The only thing I ever see people using EBT cards for is buying carts of TV dinners and bottles of pop. Add some potato chips and hotdogs to round it out. EBT should only work on certain items like WIC does.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Are you implying that $15 billion worth of suffering caused by malnutrition is a price worth paying in order to save $0.5 billion a year for a decade?
Wow, the richest country on the planet is actually going to starve lots of its' own citizens in order to save a tiny percentage of the spending wasted on pork barrel projects happily voted through in order to keep politicians in power!
Most food purchases with food stamps are not very nutritious to begin with.
Almost any political position is believed by its followers to be something that affects people's lives, and thus can be spun as affecting health care costs. It's just as easy to do it for the other side. Just take the standard political argument and tack on "so it affects health care costs". For instance, conservatives say that the costs hurt the economy. Well, in a worse economy, people have more health care problems (for hopefully obvious reasons). So food stamps increase health care costs because although they provide food (reducing health care costs), they also harm the economy by a marginal amount (increasing health care costs). If the latter effect is larger, then food stamps are a health care disaster.
And it's unlikely that the study which claimed that cutting food stamps increases health care costs by 15 billion took into account the possibility that paying for food stamps hurts the economy and health care costs are larger in a worse economy.
I can claim that gun control decreases health care costs (because it reduces gun violence and victims of violence use hospitals--this has been claimed for real). I could on the other hand claim that looser gun laws decrease health care costs (because people can use guns to protect themselves from criminals and people hurt by criminals use hospitals). Maybe we need stronger drug laws (stoned people don't take care of themselves very well) or weaker drug laws (the drug war sends people to prison where health is bad and they can't earn a living when they get out since they have an arrest record, making them poor, and so more likely to have high health care costs).
How about arguing that censoring video games reduces health care costs? (fewer teens will become criminals if you censor games; less crime means fewer people sent to hospitals by criminals). It's all about disguising a political position as a nonpartisan one, not about health care.
as the economy struggled and the costs are not sustainable
How about saving trillions by cutting other unnecessary programs like... oh I don't know... spying on everyone on earth and the long-term war on being middle-eastern that the US seems to keep waging.
Nope. We'll cut food to the poor, because fuck the poor! That's why!
They are "EBT" cards, and you most certainly buy all sorts of non-nutritional stuff. All the fast food joints around here proudly proclaim "EBT Accepted"!
That's just an invitation to sweep with a narrower broom. Feel free to refuse it.
Healthy food costs less than shitty food. Some examples:
A gallon of water costs less than a gallon of soda.
A pound of frozen vegetables costs less than a pound candy.
A pound of chicken costs less than a pound of hamburger.
A dozen eggs costs less than a dozen candy eggs.
A pound of potatoes costs less than a pound of potato-chips.
This is all anecdotal, of course.
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job. Advice from a white guy sitting in a suburban home in front of his expensive computer.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
how much junk the average welfare case buys that isn't healthy food. Also watch how much cash they bring in to buy cigarettes, liquor, or gambling merchandise (lottery/lotto tickets, etc). It's fucking pathetic.
Now THAT said: Random 'spot checks' at various stores could knock out a lot of these over the next 5-20 years. Just watch for people doing such behavior and permanently ban them from the program. (Obviously no jail time, or they'd get to benefit off the system some more.)
On the *OTHER* hand, the people I ran into who *WEREN'T* abusing them were generally coming into a convenience store to buy ramen because their primary modes of transportation were foot and bus and the particular area did not have any grocery stores offering either late night service, or food priced for the poor. These are the kind of people who need it and for the amount being spent, if it's really 1 in 7 Americans, it's a bargain. (Consider: Every American, assuming 7x the listed rate, would only cost 560 billion a year to feed! Given the yearly budget now, that's a drop in the bucket overall, and combined with at-cost drug manufacturing, could take care of the entire populace for less than a variety of governmental operating costs.)
Just some food for thought. I personally dislike many aspects of government handouts, but between the poor and the financial institutions, I'd rather it go to the lazy degenerates who don't have the power to fuck up the economy, than the ones who DO :)
You also need to count:
1) Lost worker productivity costs to the economy (most of these people have jobs)
2) Increased welfare costs (these new sick people are the age of parents and caretakers)
3) Increased long term health care costs (these sick people will not disappear in 10 years)
The costs of creating a huge underclass has serious economic implications. Ask any teacher and they will tell you that the kids they have trouble teaching are the ones who don't get enough food to eat, and those who don't live in safe neighborhoods. You know, the ones you're too afraid of driving through.
The fact that there are hungry children in this country should make you feel ashamed about gleefully cutting programs that feed the poor. And you don't even have the math partially right, nor do you seem understand the basic economic facts that operate in all known current economic theory (and common sense): taking care of a population's health (including nutrition) through a public service is much cheaper for societies than only guaranteeing emergency services, unless we start euthanizing the poor in hospital parking lots. That's how two dozen other countries provide 100% coverage for at least half the cost per capita with similar health outcomes.
These new puppet conservatives do not have common sense or common decency, and further, they lack a prime signifier of adulthood: the ability to put the needs of others above their own wants. Why you would want to support them in their quest to keep tax cuts for people who don't need them while gutting basic services to the next generation of Americans is quite mysterious, unless being a parasite of the aristocratic class is something that appeals to you.
And let's face it, that's all the Republican party is. As proof of this fact, name one Republican policy that benefits the poor to the detriment of the rich. Just one.
Christ may have died for the poor, but the GOP fights for the wealthy. It's an odd reality for the party of God, isn't it?
You're not very smart. Ihe idea is that by reducing food stamps you force people on them to buy cheaper, lower-quality food, which means they then will start suffering from more diseases and disorders.
Learn to read before you try to speak, moron.
> a bigbox store like walmart wants to open up and provide jobs that pay a wage
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html
So you're saying that no wage is better than a wage of somekind at all in the case of the "mother of 5 living in a shithole?"
Om, nomnomnom...
You cannot make money without spending money
You cannot save money without spending money
Cheap solutions can end up very expensive
Expensive but appropriate solutions can wind up costing less
This is all very basic stuff. Sticker price is rarely the only price.
NB: Appropriate is there for a reason. Charging more for a bad product doesn't magically make it a good product. If it did, can you imagine how good bank CEOs would be by now? In fact, there are a number of situations where the normal economic rules invert, where high prices are desirable and price wars lead to ever-higher costs.
Equally, low sticker prices don't automatically mean bad. Think of Linux, which has the lowest sticker price possible and is superb. But that only appears degenerate because of looking at sticker price alone. If you cost the time spent developing and testing, you actually show Linux to be in the fourth category. If you value developer time at typical market rates, Linux probably weighs in at around $1.2 billion. Very expensive, but the TCO of using it is very very low.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The uneducated single mother probably has 5 kids so she can get that free money.
..."skullfucked within an inch of their lives."
In short, if these so-called "doctors" really wanted to improve peoples' health, they would be lobbying to make it so that SNAP benefits could not be used to purchase foods with added sugars and cheap carbohydrates.
So... You're saying that the 5 kids born to the mother in the slums is a problem? Well yes of course it is.
So, should we be teaching her not to have 5 kids, when she can reliably expect other people to pay for them... because that's all she's ever seen. Haven't we tried that already? That doesn't sound too convincing. What do we do when that doesn't work? Looking for a solution here.
That whole "sterilizing the poor and the unfit" thing doesn't seem to go over so well in the long run, as nice as it sounds up front, got anything else?
You have college grads working at McDonald's, work is scarce right now.
a wage of somekind at all
That depends, you didn't make it clear in your original post, but quite a few seem to think that if these people just learned to suck dick to get a whole 20 hours a week scheduled at walmart they wouldn't need welfare.
Personally, I'm all for Republicans getting their way and shutting down all the welfare and safety nets. Three meals from anarchy is a bit pessimistic, I think the country will give them about a week or so to start making with the jobs they claim will magically appear before there's a run on pitchforks and torches.
It's amazing, really. You take away someone's food and they get sick.
I think food stamps cutting is just what the USA needs to light the tinderbox once and for all. You never know what will trigger the next uprising until it goes off. Any event - however small - can do.
And what is the cost savings for reduction of the disease called obesity? Oh wait, that's totally backwards isn't it.
Better known as 318230.
OK, that's a deliberately controversial subject line. Do any other OECD countries have anything like SNAP? AFAIK, the poor and unemployed get income assistance of some kind. They trust their unfortunate citizens to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions. On the whole, it works about pretty well; most people are responsible and conscientious and do the best they can with what they have and what they know.
Also... deliberately divisive arguments like labelling groups "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" are simply to distract us from the real problems. The same goes for "bootstrap" arguments. If you want less poverty, raise the minimum wage and give workers the effective right to organise and bargain collectively. This alone would go a long way towards making the US prosperous again. The simplest way to put the rationale behind this is that the 99% spend and circulate money thereby generating economic activity (so called "multiplier effects" described in Keynesian economics). The 1% hoard money thereby taking it out of the system (and into the casinos... ahem... Wall Street) thereby depressing the economy. FDR knew what he was doing with his top bracket tax rates.
When large numbers of people get disproportionately poor, start looking for who's getting disproportionately richer and then follow the money trail. I doubt where it leads will come as any surprise to most people.
How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms. If you get pregnant again you will be dropped from welfare and charged with child endangerment."
Why should people that are themselves dependents have the right to create more dependents with no consequences?
... is to do away with the program completely.
First of all, it is flat-out wrong to suggest that one person is not allowed to have an opinion about how another person spends their food stamps. The fact the the stamps come from tax money means EVERY tax payer has paid for the right to have an opinion about it. See also: subsidized health care, and how it makes everyones lifestyle everyones business (I propose all dangerous, injury-causing leisure time activities now be banned for that reason, and I will decide what is "dangerous").
Secondly, I disagree with the notion that just food is cheaper at a grocery store than healthy items, and that it isn't fair to expect poor people to eat rice every day. I am the procurer of provisions in my household of 3, so I have direct experience. "Staples" are refreshed, and used up, every month. To suggest I am being forced to supplement our meals with ten pounds of rice and a bag of potatoes every month is ludicrous, it is just intelligent home economics. Many hours of my free time are also spent in gardening every summer, and tomatoes and onions from that garden are eaten year round after I can it up, an inexpensive technology that has existed in its current form for a couple hundred years, at least.
The only way to fix the problem of "spending their food stamps on steak and lobster and junk food" is just to remove that choice completely. If someone is poor enough for food stamps, then we consult the Official US Government Dietary Needs table for the person at that sex at that age, and they get a box every 2 weeks with exactly the nutritious food they need, at the appropriate calorie level for their age, with enough snack cakes for small dessert every evening. This makes the fiscal conservatives happy... less money is being wasted. This also eliminates the ignorance of a person not knowing which foods are nutritious, and then the government can also even out the production of agricultural products and possibly remove the need for farm subsidies. If the government KNOWS it is going to need X amount of bread each month, then it can more intelligently utilize the nations bread producers. This makes the central-government socialists happy.
Really, it's win/win/win. If the person on the dole still wants a lobster once a month, no one will stop them, they can use their allotment of cigarette money for that week.
They knew better than to have five kids, but they didn't care.
I'm sitting in front of my inexpensive computer in my (paid for) house because I'm not fucking stupid. I've worked with folks from poor and prosperous backgrounds, and the successful sort know not to breed what you can't feed.
Children are a choice, and while I'm actually fine with feeding the poor as an alternative to spending more on them, let's never pretend that stupid people deserve respect. We pay for these burdensome losers to buy political peace. It's cheaper than prison.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Somekind of wage at all is a great idea. We should re-invent the company store. Ban all labor unions, Dispatch with the EPA and OSHA. Dismiss minimum wages. Fuck, while where at it lets bring back slavery, because you know their masters had to take care of their slaves too.
Or you could wake the fuck up and read American history from 1850 to current and learn why we have many of the labor and wage laws we do. You have a wonderfully deluded idea that the past was some great and epic time where things where fair and anyone that wanted to work was showered with good wages. It is unfortunate that reality disagrees with you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why should anyone the right to create more people with no consequences?
I don't see why this is a problem exclusively surrounding poor people. We live in an overcrowded world.
It is unfortunate that politicians only look at the next year or two of results in order to get themselves re-elected. (Unless of course they can pull out a big number by extending savings over a decade.) Of course it could be argued that this might be brought about by the voter only looking at the short term and not electing someone who votes for proposals that look beyond the election cycle. But how things currently stand it is a rare politician who will vote to spend money on a program that won't get them votes in order to save money in the longer term.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I worked in one of those stores. A single mother of five is almost certainly better off not joining the staff.
She's starting 20 hours a week* at just above minimum wage. That's about $160 a week. Daycare for five kids destroys that. Since it's a big box store all associates are expected to open once a week and close once a week, and they really like to change the schedule every week so you have no clue whether you'll be home Tuesday night three weeks from now, which means she has no clue whether your eldest will need to babysit his brothers or he can agree to go to an Academic Games tournament.
In other words getting the job is going to make her a worse mother without bringing in anywhere near enough to pay the bills. The only reasons for her to take the job are a) it might convince some self-righteous asshole who inherited $500k and turned his hobby into a job in the State Senate that she's not one of Those People, allowing her to keep her government benefits longer, and b) it qualifies her for the Earned Income Credit at tax time.
The reason left-wing working-class black city councils tend to be anti-Walmart isn't that black people are stupid morons who've been brainwashed by hippies, it's that they've done this math.
*Cashiers at my store usually start at 10 hours, and cashier is the entry-level for almost all women who are hired in, so 20 hours is probably an exaggeration. Garden is the other way women get in, they only get 20-25 hours there, and it's not unusual for Corporate to decree that there's no budget to hire them permanently after six months.
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job. Advice from a white guy sitting in a suburban home in front of his expensive computer.
Damn you're good. I believe the niveau of armerican sarcasm/irony has finally reached a new hight(assuming you're american....)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms.
That's fine in theory. Except for the fact that the people that want to gut Food Stamps also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning. The openly attack the private organizations that provide birth control pills and condoms to would be welfare mothers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Why should people that are themselves dependents have the right to create more dependents with no consequences?
Because they vote for Democrats.
The welfare state is all about building a captive voter base for the left.
All of the fat asses will have less food. If they want better nutrition maybe they should get a better job.
Well, one small problem... okay, a couple:
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.)
Most of these mothers have a shit education courtesy of public schooling (assuming the mother actually completed high school - usually she didn't), so "dinner" usually means fast-food takeout, or whatever the local bodega has in the way of food (imagine growing up on convenience store burritos and soda every night...)
Jobs suck in depressed areas - triply so if you have no education.
Moving (or even saving up enough money to do that) is a trial at best - especially when you consider that most "services" in depressed areas are geared towards screwing over the poor (see also payday loans, credit cards, etc).
Finally, the capper: government assistance sucks. It is geared towards insuring that once you are on it, you never come off of it. The moment you start making any money, you get taxed hard, you lose the assistance funding, and they kick you out of that government-assisted housing. Oh, and since you haven't the education or funds to access tax specialists or any other real option, you're basically fucked and stuck.
Now this isn't always the case - with the help of family, you can pull yourself out of such straits. However, because family has been pretty much obliterated over the decades in these areas by the lack of fathers, and by an overweening demand by certain ideologues that family is an anachronism? Well, it's part of how you wind up with a permanent underclass. ...and no one seems to want to fix this. The right wants to cut down funds in order to force initiative and drive, while the left wants to smooth over it with more money. To be honest, neither answer is correct - but a hybrid of the two would work well, if done right. Put a time limit on the funds, but require the recipient take classes, look for work, etc - then provide enough assistance towards the end so that the newly-working single mother isn't faced with instant penalties just for making a paycheck.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
As long as your machine guns never overheat, have infinite ammo, and never have a clip/belt that needs to be changed. As soon as the machine gun goes click, click, click, you are dead.
I see you're believing the lie. Good job!
If you're going to go that far just tie their tubes?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So you want to give them free health care with contraceptive coverage? That is an idea, but I don't think the Republicans are going to accept that.
How is sex education and family planning going to have any effect? If the financial incentive is still there, then they're going to continue to have kids. Take away the free shit first and then we can tell them what happens 9 months after you stick a penis in a vagina.
Productivity, really?
You should at the consumers of food stamps before you accuse them of productivity.
POTUS LBJ declared a "War on Poverty". Just like his war in Vietnam, we lost.
And if she doesn't use the condoms because she's on the pill, but managed to forget to take it a few times and ends up pregnant?
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents? Might as well just drown every child past 2 born to any mother on welfare. It'd be more humane.
Learn to love Alaska
That's fine in theory. Except for the fact that the people that want to gut Food Stamps also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning.
To be fair, there's also that not-having-sex-until-marriage part, not to mention promoting fatherhood (as opposed to just being a "baby daddy") but please - feel free to overgeneralize. ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I see you're believing the lie. Good job!
You know, you might have a point except for one word: Detroit.
No republican has held any kind of office in that city since the 1950's. The democrats set the policies, and ran the government there. They ballooned the welfare state there to unimaginable proportions. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
in the past both offered poor plans that may people better off to be on medcade
I'm amazed you can look down on these people so much to write all that drivel but not enough to realize that they don't know better. Below a certain point of economic well being it's hard to function as a human being. You're not so much making choices as barely surviving.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Holy shit! What the hell is wrong with you? Go read this guy's posting history, everybody! You are a grade a soulless cunt. All you seem to do is hate on poor folks day after day, unless you're opining about the good ol days of playing Jarts. It's too fucking bad one of them didn't land on your skull. The world could do better with less of your kind. You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Detroit collapsed because people left as the auto industry there was collapsing. This had nothing to do with welfare. Also there was the whole thing with white flight which drastically drove down property values. Corruption of city officials and mismanagement of funds also contributed. However, if the pensions were adequately funded as they were supposed to be, then Detroit would be fine today. http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue
also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning
False, they support abstinence education. Yes, we all know that blacks are animals that can't control themselves, but animal reproduction is limited more efficiently by natural food scarcity than by Kermit Gosnell extermination facilities, though distributing crack shows promise in producing a final solution
Detroit collapsed because people left as the auto industry there was collapsing.
So what did they bring in to replace it? Numerous cities had to cope with the loss of manufacturing (of various industries), so why did Detroit fail so spectacularly?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't forget that Walmart (and probably the other retail co's too) like to cut the fuck out of peoples' hours because store management's bonus is heavily tied to labor hour usage. The Walmart I work at, there will be a 5 department-wide area with ZERO ASSOCIATES working in it for an entire day! Why? Because the only people in the store making a livable wage want even more money.
YEAH MURCA! RED WHITE AND BLUE YEAH!
You still have not provided any evidence that this was because of welfare. I agree there was mismanagement of city funds, but that has nothing to do with welfare.
Yep. This is part of why I can't call myself a republican anymore. They go full retard. They shit on welfare recipients, but because of their religious idiocy, they refuse to take PROVEN steps to help prevent people from requiring so much extra financial help.
Oh no man, you don't get to play the "I was joking" card on that shit. Even if you weren't that AC, there are so many here that actually do believe everything that bastard posted that you can't really joke about it. I expect you just wanted an excuse to bash some Americans, but honestly just go fuck yourself. You want to roll in here and rip someone a new asshole but you can't even convey your insults properly. Learn to spell. Learn some grammar. Learn to punch your fist directly up your ass so far you can move your jaw with your own hand from the inside. As it is now, whenever it moves, I just hear shit spewing out. Time to make it official.
...and I'm not on food stamps. I work for a living and I don't want a hand-out, and I'm not whining about it. I frequent /. because I like thoughtful discussions. Nonetheless, sorry to be a troll but half of the people commenting here in this discussion are dicks for thinking they can judge poor people by watching someone else swipe an EBT any more than I could judge you by looking inside your glorious refrigerator.
Yeah, why would anyone do that when the secret is that our economy depends on people having kids because it's a giant pyramid scheme. And when responsible, married people do not participate in it, it's perfectly ok to use single mothers to fill the quota.
I can see with my own eyes that opening the government spending spigots ("stimulus", food stamp expansion, etc.) has not made anything any better. It has made things worse.
It's not Wal-marts fault, the taxpayers fault, the schools fault that these people have no education, are not responsible and five kids. In fact you could circle back around and blame the government because they encourage carelessness and apathy with food stamps and welfare. When these people have a kid, there is no incentive to not have another one. Most reasonable people should know what they can and can not afford and provide for themselves. These people do not care, plain and simple, there is NO other explanation for their actions. They know the government (you and I) will provide for them.
Hi my name is Certain Unalienable Rights, apparently I don't have any presence in these modern times. With patriots like this, who needs communism and the whole totalitarian gang?
The GOP doesn't care of the negative effect, they only care about slashing costs. As to that end, it will not increase costs. If they're poor, then they're on medicaid or medicare. Both programs will get slashed if the Grand Old Party has it's way. Cut food stamps, cut health care, no increase in costs, no problem.
Cutting foodstamps, welfare, social programs has never been about balancing the budget. It has ALWAYS been about clearing up more room for corporate handouts.
It's not exclusively a poor problem. However, I don't think it is unreasonable that someone that can't afford to take care of themselves be asked to not increase their expenses by their own choice while taking hand outs.
A pointless and moralistic stance.
Sure, but that's beside the point.
Opposition to contraceptives and proper sex education is purely malicious.
problem solved.
Because they can still get on their feet and want to have children later. It isn't eugenics or whatever you want to call it that I'm proposing. I'm proposing personal responsibility to not make themselves a bigger burden than they already are.
Too bad. Shit happens. If she didn't want to take risks she should have swallowed.
After, let's say kid #3 or so, you figure they still haven't figured out that they can't pay for them, and just keep having more in ignorance? They don't know that "unprotected sex with a man who isn't responsible = one more mouth I can't afford to feed?" You truly believe they're that stupid? Then you're no better than the guy you're quoting. You think no more highly of the welfare queens than him.
Isn't it entirely possible, and even likely, that they DO know better, but simply do not care because they were raised in an environment where they know that somebody else's money will always be there, because we as a country can't stand to see children suffer for the mistakes of their parents? Why does nobody ever seriously consider what message that's teaching these children? This will never stop, because we're raising generation after generation of leeches on society, who are born and bred into that system. This is all the children ever see, so that's how they assume life is. As we find the alternative unthinkable, our only choice is to hope that the rest of society produces more extra wealth than drains on society consume.
Let me make sure I understand this.
Congress is waging war over $2 billion in budget cuts. In a budget that is around $3 trillion. The deficit alone is $680 billion.
Let's frame this in context. This is arguing over a 2 cent line item on a $300 bill.
And we wonder why our government is the laughing stock of the free world.
There are clinics pretty much everywhere that hand out condoms. Pills might be a bit harder to get though I admit.
The article you linked to at Forbes. People, think about this..
Do you really think it is Wal-marts or Mcdonalds fault or the root of the problem that they provide this information to their employees? The government programs exist and have salary/income limits. If Wal-Mart or Mcdonalds did not tell them, the programs and the same limits and requirements STILL exist. Wal-mart, Target, and every other single retailer that has a large number of positions that do not require any specialized skill set (they do not even require basic match or even to speak the native language) to qualify to work there are under no obligation to raise their wages above the governments limits for assistance. If they can not get enough employees, they will raise their wages to get them.
That's like the mortgage company telling you that you may be able to deduct your mortgage interest from your income if you itemize your tax return. Are you blaming the mortgage companies for telling people about that? OMG, the mortgage companies are telling people how to get a government handout!! Are YOU personally taking the deduction right now? Why? Because it is available to you, you qualify for it, and you know about it. When I was an E4 in the military, I was told that my kids may qualify for reduced lunches at my income. Guess what, they got them. Was the problem that my command told me about it?
I am not condoning welfare and food stamps, I am simply pointing out that because people are being told how to sign up is NOT the problem.
Damm right! That's exactly who I blame for this whole mess!
We have so much tainted law, coined by special interest groups, that "protect" artificial monopolies which exist only at lawyerpoint, create so much bureaucracy to raise barriers of entry for entrepreneurship, that we all become peons of the banking elite who decide whether or not we live or die.
Work is not scarce, if you have skills that are in demand. There are MILLIONS of unfilled positions right now! Today! Why haven't those been filled, hmm?
I blind moved to a city with a growing market for my skills, contacted several placement agencies, and had a temporary contract job within a month. I had my choice of THREE permanent placement options at other companies before that initial temporary contract was up.
Maybe when Daddy told you that nobody was going to hire you with a degree in womyn's studies or asian literature, he wasn't being a racist sexist neanderthal. Maybe Daddy knew something.
The only major point here that you missed is COINTELPRO, which along with the related "drug war" is a big part of how we got to the point where it's 'normal' in parts of america not to have a father.
These are problems created by the government and exploited by the government to increase government power. The government is never going to solve these problems because it is not in their interest to do so.
And the people who are arguing to cut a few million in food stamps while refusing to take even a tiny cut in the untold billions being spent on global offense are just the shameful icing on the cake.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I would go with one of the birth control implants (they are both trivially reversible, and you only have to remember to take it once ever few years).
You have to be careful with the "it's for the children" argument. If you let people use children as human shields, they will. While it sounds humane in the short run, it isn't in the long run. I know that there are a lot of people who don't believe that parents would willfully abuse their children, but it most certainly happens regularly.
That being said, I keep moving closer and closer to being a proponent of a minimum income for everyone. I believe that we are rapidly approaching (or may have already past) the point that there simply isn't enough real work for everyone to have a job. Sure their are plenty of ditches that could be dug with a spoon, but that isn't really productive.
I never said that welfare was the only cause - now the welfare state on the other hand was a large contributing factor.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
In many cases, they chose to have those kids out of wedlock and without any planning for the future. They wouldn't have had those kids in the first place if the state wasn't promising them a husbandless meal ticket at everyone else's expense. Women without husbands shouldn't be having kids anyway. Not having a positive, masculine male role model in the house is the largest indicator of future thuggery in the children. Obviously, there are cases with extenuating circumstances, but the majority are just feeding off the welfare system.
You know the leftist cognitive dissonance is really bad when men get blamed for these fatherless children while womyn openly declare "My body, my right, my choice" and "It's a woman's issue". If it's her body, their right, her choice, then the consequences are also her responsibility, not his, and not the taxpayer's.
Of course, if government is declared as responsible for nutrition, then then naturally it must also be responsible for the effects thereof.
This is a significant reason why state control must always beget more state control: regulators must make an at least ostensible attempt to correct unintended effects that are the result of a given intervention. The domain of responsibility becomes effectively unbounded.
While devising a complex system by means of patches in ad infinitum can work (see, Linux kernel), but only if that system's usage is constrained by voluntary choice.
Sadly, this means that folks with a given expertise (say, medical), will say things like they do in TFA: the sort-sighted view that governments should generally increase or at least maintain spending in order to avoid the expected bad effects of backing out on a responsibility.
There can be no substitute for individual responsibility.
The how about they just keep their pants on. There is a name we call people who get paid to have sex, just saying.
To be fair, there's also that not-having-sex-until-marriage part,...
If you're asexual then not-having-sex-at-all may even be best. Sex has all kinds of risks aside from pregnancy. But many people aren't asexual and, for such people, sex is a fundamental need - like eating or sleeping or going to the bathroom. And this need for sex persists even when it's clearly not a good idea to being having more children.
Now, you yourself may be at least partially asexual. If so, lucky you! But, just as Solzhenitsyn has said that a man who is warm will never understand a man who is cold, a person who doesn't need sex will never understand a person who does.
Essentially, recommending abstinence as a solution to unwanted pregnancy is like recommending that people not go to the bathroom within the city limits as a solution to problems with the city sewer. It might seem workable to someone who is asexual but it's not even remotely realistic for everyone else.
I believe the cause of Pregnancy is well know, with simple and cheap ways to avoid it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
We addressed this problem in the mid 90's and the solution was working well. It was undone in the last two years of the Bush Admin.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Income disparity has grown so great there has never been a better time to "succeed." Epic rewards are driving epic greed.
Cut food stamps,
Cut Public healthcare.
Cut Taxes.
And stop fucking with things that don't need fucked with.
> I am simply pointing out that because people are being told how to sign up is NOT the problem.
No, the problem is minimum wage is too low, that insurance is tided to the job you have, and that long term joblessness is an ever increasing problem in our country. Where I do blame many of the big corporations is the amount of effort they expend in fighting minimum wage increases.
The fact that you were able to afford to relocate and be out of work for a month shows you are in a far better position than people on welfare who are prohibited from accumulating any significant savings.
That way all those lousy people just die sooner...sounds like a typical Libertarian/Republican doesn't it? Makes sense less people to care for solves all sorts of social problems.
But wait what happens when the top .0001 have 99.99999% of the money and then all the middle class Libertarians/Republicans become members of the lower class because the middle class has disappeared? (This is where we are headed! Just wait till 99% of the jobs can be done by machines.)
Curious what will you all say then? Heh? Burger anyone?
Abortion in 1981: A total of 1,300,760 legal abortions were reported to the CDC, with 358 abortions for every 1000 live births, and 24 out of 1000 women have abortions.
Abortion in 2010: A total of 765,651 legal induced abortions were reported to the CDC from 49 reporting areas, with 228 abortions for every 1000 live births, and 14.6 out of 1000 women have abortions.
As for STDs a cursory search indicates AIDS is down, syphilis bottomed out in the early 2000s but is resurgent, the clap is on the rise, and gonorrhea is flat.
Does not count as sex education because it's been found time and again to not work in any way whatsoever, and even occasionally to do more harm than good.
I do see possibly a large outrage or riot as more and more things get cut when it comes to welfare
People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
No jail time? So you have thought about this being a real possibility? Wasting more time and money for people that haven't committed a crime!!
Lets ignore the other factors that have killed the economy!!
"" Random 'spot checks' at various stores"" If the stores and there employees were to implement a system of training and reporting FS abuse, like I believe there suppose to this would cut down on people abusing the program.
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.)
Why?
The reason why is obvious, of course. There is no inventive for the people on food stamps to spend less than their monthly allowance. The goal of the local market is to make that happen while not giving the food stamp recipients enough incentive to go elsewhere.
"His name was James Damore."
The math of moving in with Daddy is just as bad as the Wal-Mart job. Statistically, Daddy is unlikely to be able to support her and the kids. The DixieCrats didn't have an epiphany. This was done on purpose. If you wanted to destroy the Black nuclear family via economic means, the "Great Society" was an almost ideal way to do that, and they were too uneducated due to previous racism to realize that.
Except that many of the same people pushing that old-school morality don't practice it themselves.
According to her wiki page, Sarah Palin eloped on Aug 29th, 1988 and her 1st child Track was born on Apr 20, 1989.
And daughter Bristol? Not only did she not wait to get married, she didn't bother waiting to turn 18.
No need. You've outed yourself spectacularly.
I thought the biggest health problem in the US is obesity, and obesity is roughly inversely related to wealth. So....this should actually reduce health care costs.
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.) Most of these mothers have a shit education courtesy of public schooling (assuming the mother actually completed high school - usually she didn't), so "dinner" usually means fast-food takeout, or whatever the local bodega has in the way of food (imagine growing up on convenience store burritos and soda every night...)
Is that even true? Ghettos are the best place for grocery stores. There is all that food stamp money that has to be spent or its gone. People in ghettos have lots of time and little money and so they aren't going to restaurants to eat and so must buy groceries and cook them to feed themselves. Plus, ghettos have low rent, ample labor and grocery stores have to have very little investment to get started and the goods have very short turnover.
In a rich neighborhood, the grocery stores are more of a semi-prepared food outlet than a real grocery store. Produce is over-priced and mostly for show (now even worse with organic stuff encroaching the limited spaces). There is the prepared meat section, the prepared dinner section, lunch salad section and lots and lots of packaged fancy food health sections. They also serve as a minimalist one stop stations selling all sorts of junk.
In the ghetto grocery store, there is no organic section, no salad bar section, no exotic cheese section, no fancy seafood section, no health food section, no deli and rotisserie chicken section and aren't selling anything except food. It piles of produce and meat that are half on "quick sale" because they don't have any fancy facilities to keep them fresh. Because they are the ghetto, the stores are enormous. You can with very little money buy a lot of groceries.
Mothers lacking in education can't cook? The ghetto mamas can cook, let me tell you that. You have the whole day and cooking is a good way to spend the time. It's only when you get richer than you sacrifice time for fast food. Its the working stiffs that are plagued by the ills of fast food. The jobless with all the time in their hands certainly cook. I buy groceries in the "ghetto" and sometimes end up in conversations with people (they buy everything off the food stamp debit card so that's how I know). They are cooking for their church, school, some get-together, party and endless engagements in the near future.
While it's true that the educated and comfortable aren't really capable of understanding the plight of the poor, they're also in a position to think about these issues in an analytical fashion absent the desperation that comes with poverty. For instance, views on foreign aid to Africa have been changing recently. This is the result of studies that have shown that while well meaning, the aid keeps those receiving it from achieving self sufficiency.
So should we never question the types of aid that we provide in this country? Welfare is both a safety net and a web in from which the poor rarely escape. Are we not creating the same sort of dependence here at home that we do with foreign aid? Is there not a better way for us to be spending that money to help turn these people from perpetually non-productive members of society into contributors? I think we can all agree that our social safety net should act more like a trampoline to help people bottom out and, with a slight jump on their part, return to a height where they can stand on their own two feet.
As such, I think it's our duty as privileged people without the day-to-day concerns of figuring out how to survive to continually question whether the money we're spending to help poor people is being spent in their best interests...albeit with a bit more tact and empathy than GP.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation
Seems like they're very productive. Deal with it.
C|N>K
So you're saying it's pointless to "voluntarily abstain from sex until you're in a relationship where the couple are committed enough to care for a child"? If you have sex, then fine but be responsible for all the consequences. Abstaining until marriage is a 100% guarantee that no babies will happen.
Bescuse giving birth is just that easy, and doesn't involve a man at all.
How about this idea
If you receive food stamp - you receive a 5 acre plot, fertilizer, soil, seeds to grow your own food
and you can do what ever with the food you grow.
The article would have you believe food subsidies are a way of helping the poorest USians afford a basic necessity of life. What it actually is a method whereby the richest can lay a tax on the middle class and give a small percentage of the money to the poor. It is similar to the lottery. The only one who has your best interests at heart is yourself. Conservatives understand this. Democrats like to play a game to pretend they are helping the poor, but in fact help themselves a WHOLE lot more. Who ones all the subsidized housing complexes. Rich fuckers like Al Gore. You can't help someone less well off unless your are more well off. Unfortunately the way to get more well off seems to be by taxing the middle class.
You are an utter shithead. Go fuck yourself.
Water has ZERO calories vs. a boatload for soda.
Google for "calories per dollar". Most of the foods at the top of the list are junk like fast-food burgers and pizza. Papa John's advertises that they accept EBT (I think it's because the pizza is frozen and you have to heat it, so that's OK). That's probably a good calorie/dollar ratio on their pizza. (No, I don't work for PJ's). The one food that's considered healthy on those lists is bananas; but you'd have to eat like a gorilla to get a full meal from them. A good rule of thumb is to eat like Mexicans. Beans and rice have excellent calories/dollar if you don't mind what beans do. Throw in just a bit of cheese and meat on the side and you can feed yourself cheaply.
Anyway, healthy food *can* be had for less than junk, but you really have to think about it. The typical EBT recipient is not even likely to make the leap of logic to google for "calories per dollar" or think about healthy food. Also, those who are working poor are pressed for time. Have you ever tried to get from afordable housing to low-wage work via public transit? I've seen people doing that riding the opposite way on the Metro--working people living in DC going out to the 'burbs on the train, transferring to a bus to get to some office park where they answer the phones. You're so tired at the end of the day, the fast-food place near your house is all you've got time for.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
well lets see, because
1. employers expect too many hours/day
2. they're not even paying market rates for the skillsets
3. they're loaded with shitty, passive aggressive, office politics
4. they won't hire anyone with any sort of employment or social blemish whatsoever. This is a big one.
They want to pay pennies on the dollar, so they come up with any excuse imaginable to say local talent is 'unemployable', and then demand more H1B's..
While I agree that getting degrees in bullshit doesn't help, the reasons I've listed are a big part of the problem today. Whoever's training the HR drones should be shot.
We can talk about it when you're older. See, there are birds, and there are bees...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'll answer with a Video that says if you vote for Paul Ryan he will push your grandmother off a cliff with Medicare cuts.
Not sure how much better of an answer to your question is possible. Not only do they do it, this shows you who, and shows how they hold that power over people, and EXATLY the political ads they use to exercise that power.
Not sure why you are being stupid about this and pretending you've never heard about something like this.
I was behind someone last week that bout 6 strawberry shortcake popsicles on her EBT card at a convenience store for $2.25 each.
Zoid.com
read American history from 1850 to current
Yes, why don't we? Then we'd see what is really wrong with this world: the Industrial Revolution is the mother of
all unintended consequences.
A buddy of mine came up to me one day (as John Cusack would say, in a Moment of Blazing Clarity) and said to me, "Why can't I just say the hell with all this and move out to like North Dakota or something, and raise goats and stuff like that, and make everything I need myself?"
I replied that this wasn't actually possible, because even if you could be completely self-sufficient, you would have no life.
What you want is to be part of a community where everyone makes something of value, where everyone is a farmer, blacksmith, silversmith, woodworker, or has some other kind of trade. And what you don't make, your neighbor does, or your brother, cousin, etc. Then you (hopefully) can barter for stuff, reducing your need for money. This is basically how people lived for thousands of years (gross oversimplification, I know).
But then comes the Industrial Revolution, so everyone sells the farm and moves to the big city to get a job. "Yay! Look at all this money I'm making!" they say. Except the money isn't really theirs, it's for the rent and all the other bills.
Now wait until they get laid off, or their hours get cut down to nothing. Now they're in a trap: they're in a situation where money has become an absolute requirement for survival (I wonder who engineered this). They no longer have the option of barter to pay for stuff, because they no longer own the works of their hands (it's the property of Corporate America). This is the root cause of poverty, and the War on Poverty is nothing more than a band aid.
Now as far as the conditions that brought about the labor laws and such you referred to, I'm getting to that.
Now The Man has got you right where he wants you: the fact that you **must** have a job to survive means the employers are holding all the cards. This situation distorts the labor market, leading to liberal initiatives like minimum wage, affirmative action, and unions in an attempt to introduce some balance.
This is what is known as bullshit.
If you would like to defend your assertion, please note references. I happen to know that you are full of shit here. But please, display any evidence you have.
Health is generally up. Abortion is down. Allowing women options seems to be a positive thing.
In their infinite wisdom they decided to continue to offer them anyway even though there was no tax base left to support them. Hence the mess they are in today.
Why should they care if this goes against their hateful ideology? According to them, if you cannot make enough money to feed you and your children in the screwed-up economic system they built, you are not worthy of survivor.
What are you going to do, put them in prison which costs $60k/year per person? Not helping costs more than giving them money.
Abstaining until marriage is a 100% guarantee that no babies will happen.
Assuming rape doesn't exist, of course. But that aside, why is the arbitrary line called "marriage" so important? What if a couple gets married and they still can't afford to care for or simply don't want children? Are they not allowed to have sex?
Using birth control is how you take responsibility for having sex, regardless of whether you're married or not.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
It has been shown from numerous health studies that proper sex education about birth control, condoms, and abortions will reduce unwanted childbirths. Also the more educated a woman gets, the less kids she is likely to have. (Woman with graduate degree have on average 2.1 kids while women without high school degrees have on average 5 kids). Unfortunately, the GOP is against sex education.
Around here, moving in with someone means you lose a large portion of your welfare benefits. In order to get the welfare, you must show your roommate's income. Is your roommate willing to give you their income and tax info?
Education and the removal of poverty. You must fix the family unit, then you will fix the poor from reproducing. Chicken and the egg. Unless you plan on mass executing the poor, you're going to need to educate them, keep their parents out of prison, and get them good jobs.
Yes, take away her kids, mess them up for life and watch crime skyrocket. Enjoy.
This is hilarious! Just hilarious! Guess where the indicators have risen the most. In the places that most staunchly scream and yell against contraception and abortion!
In places where birth control and condoms are provided readily and easily with strong sex education programs and less stigma attached to their use all indicators are down.
Where are they higher! In the Bible belt (see Texas) where all of these modern miracles of reproductive health are berated as the product of the devil. The same place that screams about all the problems caused by the lack of these marvels of modern medicine.
The US is a rather large country with a diverse population. Indicators vary by region of the country and are worst where modern contraception is socially stigmatized.
+9001, vote this up
According to Stewart and Trussell, there are about 3,000 pregnancies from rape that couldn't be prevented with timely medical care post-rape. Compare that to 1.6 million births to unwed mothers. It seems that abstinence really would work a lot better to lower low-income births. At least if you cannot afford to support the potential child that could result...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A firehose full of birth control pills and condoms has been poured on our society since the early 1970s. You may have noticed that ALL indicators - unwed pregnancy, STDs, abortions - have got WORSE, not better, since the 1970s.
Are you an idiot?
I have to ask, because e.g. abortions were illegal in most states in 1970, and AIDS was first observed in US in 1981. So comparing the stats then (heck, how can you even get trustworthy stats for abortions when they are illegal?) to what is now and pretending that it has any relation to science is a mark of a true idiot.
If you need proof that the current program is completely out of control and being abused resulting in a waste of American tax dollars, just take a look at this guy.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/08/11/watch-california-surfer-uses-food-stamps-to-buy-sushi-and-avoid-work/
This is what we need to prevent. Yes, programs providing real support to those trying to better themselves should be supported to provide basic needs. However we could do far more of that if we kick the people off support who are basically stealing from each and every American in the way this guy is.
GP didn't suggest alienating any rights. You're still free to breed, you just don't get free food if you do so uncontrollably.
I blind moved
Stopped reading due to the massive amounts of equivalence between your situation and the situation of those on welfare. You sure got your finger on the pulse, anon.
My (black) son-in-law Chucky started a business installing, dismantling and rehabbing office cubicles a few years back. He's been growing it steadily, almost entirely through referrals and repeats.
He routinely beats white-owned competitors on both quality and price. He gets no government help, and is only now starting to go after government contracts.
You were saying?
When 1 in 7 is using food stamps, there's a problem. Aren't we supposed to be in the middle of an economic recovery, with unemployment at 6.7% and falling? Why is food stamp use growing at and unprecedented rates?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The only issue with that last thing is that while it sounds good in theory, it will just end up in big groups lobbying to have whatever food they produce to be included in the program so they can cash in.
See: corn.
Obamacare pretty much does that. If you earn very little/nothing, you get free Medicaid. And with that you get free contraceptives. That's the current law - GOP approval or lack thereof notwithstanding.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not helping costs more than giving them money.
"Conservatives" don't care about saving money, especially if saving money accidentally helps the poor.
I am disabled, and I live on a thin line between life and death. And the only help I have managed to get for over ten years of trying. Is Food Stamps, and the crappy county health plan that hardly covers the basics. Last year they cut my food stamps, and took my mom completely off. I am lucky to have my mom to help , but she is working two jobs and still we can hardly pay the bills. She is still under the poverty line, and they are going to cut her county health plan soon. I am ashamed to call myself an American because freedom in this current world does not mean what I thought it did. I am not afraid of death, it would just be a release from the physical suffering. What I fear is the future of the people who live on. Like my mother, she does not deserve to suffer from the stress of this corrupt world. -Never give up hope for a better future for all.-
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Yep. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair explores this condition and some of the details.
She's not taking the risk. The child is hurt more than she is by your desire to punish the poor.
Learn to love Alaska
I'd propose something that benefited the children more directly. Pay "welfare" to the children directly in clothes and food (food given as breakfast, lunch, and pre-dinner at schools). Cut the parent's payments appropriately, and you'll have a cheaper and better system.
Learn to love Alaska
With dependents and low income, she'd likely get the full Earned Income Tax Credit if she earned any income or not. The incentive is that income in untaxed and won't reduce the credit.
20 hrs a week at wally world is less 1/6th the median wage. For a family of 5, that is less than 1/3 of the poverty level. Think about that. Even if she blew her boss and got a 40 hr week, she'd still be below poverty level. If she also got a raise... still below the poverty level.
Those jobs suck, and that life is scraping by. She'll probably live longer and have more surviving children than she would living in the woods gathering tubers and berries, but her quality of life is probably lower.
Or, what if we just execute the mean people and be done with their flawed genes?
Problem is, people aren't your statistical average for their sex and age. In fact, the majority of people will be eating poorly and their health suffering from being forced to your standardized diet. Someone who's 4'8" and someone who's 6'9" should not eat the same calories. Someone who works a physical labor job in the hot sun all day needs a heck of a lot more calories than someone who sits in bed unemployed. And of course there are all sorts of personal allergies (say gluten intolerance) and personal needs to account for.
This space intentionally left blank
"It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it!"
Next time ask: "Is your company hiring?"
Finally, the capper: government assistance sucks. It is geared towards insuring that once you are on it, you never come off of it. The moment you start making any money, you get taxed hard, you lose the assistance funding, and they kick you out of that government-assisted housing.
There is no easy way off because politicians who've never had a hungry day in their life since their plantation was burned down by Sherman's march to the sea are so terrified of 'fraud' that they've attached wild and wacky 'needs' regulations to it. Just getting by - Not a nickel for you, you stupid weak bad life judgement person!
AC
When he came home, he and his wife/ family moved next door.
Where the Republitards immediately started making snide comments about his living relationship, because the only thing they want more than "less taxes" is "more government watching your bedroom antics".
He's saying "why should we the people subsidize Walmart?".
Let Walmart pay at least what it actually costs to provide labor.
I'm not going to argue that this is the right or wrong approach, as I have not thought it out enough to decide if I think the pros or cons out weigh each other.
That being said, we already have a problem with our schools becoming state run orphanages. Most of these kids, at least here in California already get fed lunch by the schools, and a huge number of schools are starting to feed a significant number of these kids breakfast. Adding dinner wouldn't be a huge leap from where we are. I think that standardizing on children being put into orphanages by default has some pretty serious negative ramifications. The question is do the drawbacks of having an orphanage nation outweigh the benefits of helping the less fortunate children, or do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Either way, I believe that you are correct that it would cut back on parents that use their kids as a way to take money from the system for themselves.
Being responsible and having consequences for your actions fix problems, not education. You mean to tell me someone with 5 kids and living on welfare has no idea how she is getting pregnant? You can't blame it on poverty either. I read a recent story about some NFL players that have 4+ kids to 4+ different woman. The are not in poverty and although you could argue the quality of education a star athlete actually gets but they at least went to college and the OPPORTUNITY and STRUCTURE for them to get educated was there.
Quit blaming the system and start looking at the individuals and holding individuals responsible for their actions. The fact that you do not have 5 kids and not on welfare is because of?
College grads are mostly idiots, anyway. I've turned down most of the trash produced by colleges who claimed to know how to program, but couldn't even write a fizzbuzz program. I told them what a fizzbuzz program was and everything. This notion that people with pieces of paper are intelligent or people without them are less educated needs to be thrown out.
All the people in the communities that Walmarts open in buy all the things before the store opens as after.
So, where are these new jobs coming from? Stealing from Peter to pay Paul, at best.
Net is, at best, no new jobs, there are jobs moving from the retailers that operated before to some balance of the one's after.
Maybe some job loss. Probably some net community aggregate wage loss.
You might argue cheaper , more economically efficient, that is a separate argument, we are talking jobs.
emt 377 emt 4
but require the recipient take classes
More of the same garbage we see in public schools? That sort of thing just produces worker drones. And if we can make the classes decent, as may as well fix education, too.
Good luck slipping free birth control past the GOP!
I believe the cause of Pregnancy is well know, with simple and cheap ways to avoid it.
What? The pull out method? You presume these people can afford condoms, but I can assure you they can't. Add male and female contraceptive programs into Medicaid.
The end game of these libertarian fantasies is the literal wholesale murder of millions of poor "undesirables", either directly on the small scale and justified as self defense or the defence of property, or enmasse through isolation into ghettos and systematic starvation. It would dwarf the Holocaust in numbers of dead.
If you start with the premise (itself not unreasonable) that every individual has a right to defend themselves from harm and their property from theft, and you have millions of people with no ability to survive other than the appropriation of resources by force, you're going to end up with a lot of dead humans. And when the tent cities gather enough boldness and enough desperation to march on the proper cities, then you'd have the military and police slaughtering thousands at a time to protect the property rights of the middle and upper classes.
Horrifying to imagine, but there are some people who would not only be willing to go through this conflagration, but would practically welcome it. Indeed, some are even working in earnest to bring it about. They want to see the streets run red with the blood of the poor. The worst reflection I've ever had on the human condition is that some of them don't just see this nightmare as a horrible means justified by a glorious utopian end--the process itself satisfies some dark urge inside them to cause pain on the largest scale possible. If evil exists, this is it.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The government could even set aside land for small community gardens, like they do to build parks for recreation.
That's unlikely with cities and homeowners' associations being anal about zoning, throwing people in jail for three months for growing what used to be called a victory garden.
Seriously, all it takes is a couple months working at Wal-Mart to know that this is extremely short-sighted. Abuse of the system isn't just a here and there thing. What is truly rare is someone who isn't obese using their EBT card to buy healthy food; at least that's how it is in my area. It's just one disgusting fatass after another pushing cartloads of junk food and candy. What really needs to happen isn't reductions to the program, but severe restrictions on what kinds of items they can buy. I know a cashier that once had a customer who used her EBT card to buy a wedding cake. You heard me right. A GODDAMN WEDDING CAKE. Then of course at least half of them buy their crap food with food stamps and then proceed to spend $100 cash on booze and cigarettes. I am not exaggerating. You actually expect me to believe that the food stamp system as it currently is reduces health care costs? I beg to differ.
Advice from a white guy sitting in a suburban home in front of his expensive computer.
More like 'in the basement of his parent's suburban home'.
Still, we need to consider WHY said single mother has 5+ kids, and fix that. I'm not one for the 'traditional family', but I'm one who supports the extended family caring for children. IE I don't think even 2 adults is good enough, I want 3+. As such, while I recognize that some single mothers have adequate support structure with extended family helping(grandparents, typically), it's normally a pretty bad situation.
I don't read AC A human right
And nobody does anything about it ?? Not even the most enlightened and human-hearted of the so-called "leaders" do anyhting ? How socially backwards is that country, anyways ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
The religious right that you disparage is exactly the same people who pine for the welfare state; the only difference is they worship different masters. Both groups should be despised for the scum that they are.
I firmly believe you should help children and people in crisis, but for long term idiocy I am all for freedom, as in you have the right to starve to death if you refuse to change.
A welfare mom with 5 kids has proved on 5 seperate occassions she is either too incompentent to make rational decisions or is willfull choosing to have them to gain free support. Either way she is not a fit parent.
Sticking to the article, doctors are saying we need to keep the $80 billion foodstamp program because any cuts will increase healthcare costs.
By how much will healthcare costs increase? Perhaps a $10 billion decrease in food stamps will only increase healthcare costs by $5 billion. We can borrow $5 billion less from china that year.
Walmart is used as a strawman argument as to why we don't hold people accountable for their actions and refuse a round of tough love to make people reclaim the virtue of self reliance. There are other places where a single mother can get a job other than walmart. There are plenty of actions a person in a difficult sutuation can take to improve their situation. Most of these actions require people to take resposibility for themeselves first, and why would anyone do that when others are telling them that nothingn is their fault?
Is it game over for the USA?
Many think so.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Someone exposed to harsh chemical pesticides every day is more likely to become a health care burden later in life.
Then they pay for their needs and the consequences themselves. Simple.
They can do as they wish, but if they can't afford it, then they have a problem, not society.
No money. No food. Starve. Die. Problem solved.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
unlike you, they are worthless, want proof, see the world
I personally never had a problem with it
I left home with a duffle bag and a shitty old car, I have never accepted wellfare, foodstamps, though there was a 4 month period of unemployment, worked 2 shitty full time jobs and educated myself while also going to school
doing alright now, oh but that is cause I put forth effort, something a gimmie handout will never do for generations at a time
frankly, its not my fault they are stupid
So you're saying the poor are animals who cannot fathom abstinence? Nice attitude you have there.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"I'm starving, but I'm also obese"
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job. Advice from a white guy sitting in a suburban home in front of his expensive computer.
That doesn't have anything to do with reality. The single mother with 5+ kids is a Republican fantasy. (You forgot to say that she's black.) Most welfare mothers have two or three children like anybody else. A lot of them wind up on welfare because their husband gets divorced, and doesn't keep up with child support payments.
Kathryn Edin actually followed welfare mothers around and went over their budgets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Edin They do get jobs. Most of them were working in addition to welfare. You can't survive on welfare.
Paul Krugman just had a column in the NYT on why Republicans want to make the poor suffer. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/opinion/krugman-enemies-of-the-poor.html
Where is my +1 Obvious for this article? It is obvious that if you cut money for food for poor people that leads to costing the government more money in the long term. Anybody with more than half a brain can think through the expected consequences of higher poverty and malnutrition. Republican's have more than half a brain which means they thought through these consequences and they DON'T CARE!
Why isn't Fox News spouting about the WAR ON THE POOR? Because the war on CHRISTMAS is more important to them. They couldn't care less what happens to poor people and when it comes time to pay for their health costs, well, they are happy to just cut that as well and LET THEM DIE! Weren't there people shouting that at the last Republican presidential debate?
In Texas (Dallas ISD), many schools had breakfast and lunch. Especially in the poorer areas. I know others who grew up in poorer areas, and they had subsidized lunch cards, but no lunches. That makes it hard to get good nutrition to children.
What do you do with children the parents don't want? The same people trying their best to block contraception education and availability are also trying to cut support for children and prevent abortions. So what is to be done?
I hadn't really thought about it, until just now. It's sad every fall, when the PFDs come out (Alaskan payment for every resident). The families with 2 parents and 3 kids get one for every kid, paid to the parents.. $20,000 per kid over the years until the kid can collect for themselves. When it comes, there are sales on boats and snowmobiles and 4x4s. Clothes, books, toys? Nah, we'll get that next year. Sometimes those with kids make the worst parents. Saving for college? nah, we'll do that never, debt is good for you.
Learn to love Alaska
Republican businessmen themselves know better than to work at starvation wages.
I once heard a management consultant give a presentation to a bunch of printers. He ran through the costs of running a folding machine, and it came out to something like $50 an hour. He said, if you sell folding for less than $50 an hour, you're losing money. And the harder you work, the more money you're losing. A lot of printers have very busily gone out of business.
If you're an employee, you'll lose money on a minimum wage job, and you're better off not working at that rate.
Most people who work for Wallmarts are making less than it takes for them to survive. Some of them do get welfare, more of them get food stamps, if they have children they get child tax credits, and they can't afford doctors, so if they get sick, they go to the emergency room and the rest of us pay for it.
Cutting food stamps might cause people to eat more poorly. Or maybe it will cause them to eat better. To eat better, you need to prepare food yourself (rather than eat out or buy prepared foods), cut down on meat, and eat more vegetables and fiber. All of those are things that you tend to do when you need to save money on food.
It's not Wal-marts fault, the taxpayers fault, the schools fault that these people have no education, are not responsible and five kids. In fact you could circle back around and blame the government because they encourage carelessness and apathy with food stamps and welfare. When these people have a kid, there is no incentive to not have another one.
You mean before the Great Society in the 1960s, before the government gave them handouts, there was no poverty in America.
Let's turn to the history books.
To be fair, there's also that not-having-sex-until-marriage part>
Realistic things like that.
Tell us how you never had sex until marriage.
Putting a time limit on things and providing assistance means that you assume that the people have the life skills to plan and get out of poverty; but if they were capable of that kind of planning and execution, they wouldn't be poor in the first place. The only way to break this cycle is to actively force people to make changes in their lives after some time by placing conditions on receiving any further assistance: move to a different community, accept a job or a public work program, lose weight, complete training, etc.
The area where the reward structure needs to change the most is probably single parenthood. Single parenthood is, in most cases, a choice: a choice to have sex, a choice not to have an abortion, and a choice not to give up the kid for adoption. We should stop rewarding these choices financially.
I think it's been empirically proven in many places and time periods, that it is actually quite feasible to kill tens of millions of people by starvation without there being a mass uprising. It just takes some propaganda to keep people not noticing what is happening, enough time to make the starving people weaker slowly, and finally taking the necessary measures to force them to stay put in their designated death zone and deal with any minor violent protests swiftly and decisively.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/give-pain-hope.html
Sometimes we give pain instead of hope
James C. Salwitz, MD
December 25, 2013
One of the most satisfying sports is to make ourselves feel better by degrading another. What better way to make up for our own inadequacy, then to shove someone else’s face in theirs? We see this at work, in our families, in politics and in almost every type of social interaction. Nonetheless, it is particularly painful and tragic when we project our own fear and frailty onto someone that is dealing with the consequences of disease and even death.
Absolutely true, if you're willing to plan it out ahead of time and use pre-emptive force. Libertarians can't use preemptive force, it's sort of their thing. They need the desperate poor to make the first move so they can kill them in self-defense. The response will of course be disproportional, but as long as its technically a reaction and not an initiation of force, it's kosher in their religion.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I know a number of people who are working poor, often through no fault of their own. Try getting a job with full-time hours when you don't have any in-demand skills, in demand certifications or a college education. There's not a lot of choices out there. They often don't earn enough to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads. They have to go through a lot of BS to get what services they can which basically try and screw you over. Try getting a job when you're 18 with nothing more than a high school diploma when you're kicked out of your parents house. I know people who were kicked out at 16 because they don't fall within their family's church's strict belief system. Social services are completely strained and they waste an inordinate amount of time to get anything done, often with those providing the social services being overwhelmed.
I just had to send money to a friend so he could buy basic groceries and pay his rent because a job that promised him a certain number of hours immediately caused his food stamps to disappear when he got the job. Turns out the job significantly overstated the number of hours he would be working to the point where it costs more for basic transportation for his job than he earned. On top of that he has constant medical expenses that the state does not provide for just to function. All these people want is a job with full-time hours so they can pay rent and buy food but they're always getting dicked about. People complain about them owning cell phones. Try and get a job without a phone.
Or these women with children. If the child is over 5 years old that child was born when the economy was good and the parent likely could afford the child. When the meltdown hit what do you do? You can't stop taking care of the kid until they're 18. People like to blame mothers who are poor when often when they had their child they were in a much better situation. It may be their husband became abusive when the economy tanked or they lost their full-time job. It's easy to blame someone who's poor for their own problems when you don't actually know all the BS they have to put up with and go through.
The whole cutting food stamps is disgusting. Almost all of the people getting them need them to survive, and for the amount they get they're far from eating healthy, causing lost productivity and medical expenses. Try living on what food stamps provide, especially if you live in one of the less generous states. If Walmart or McDonalds doesn't want to pay their employees a living wage or give them regular full-time hours, why should I, the taxpayer, have to subsidize their employees just to put food on the table. As far as I'm concerned, companies should be fined to pay for the food stamps their employees use rather than me subsidizing their degrading employment practices.
Food stamps and unemployment payments are one of the best stimulant programs out there. The people who receive these basically spend every penny they get and put it back into the economy. A tax cut is a very poor stimulus by comparison, especially when used as an excuse to cut food stamps and other programs people need to survive. Also, the poor generally don't pay income taxes so the tax breaks do them no good whatsoever unless they affect sales taxes, which they almost never do. Also, tax cuts rarely lower fees, which tend to affect the poor far more than the middle class.
The poor I know would love to work full time and get off of welfare if they could. The sad part is that they're in a vicious cycle. They have no savings, so things like a car breaking down or a medical issue can be catestrophic as an employer may use that as an excuse to fire someone because they didn't show up on time. They're often abused by management who knows they can treat them like shit since there are enough other desparate people willing to take any job they can get. Without skills in demand it's just a race to the bottom. Companies like Walmart give bonuses to managers who cut hours and employees which just makes life worse.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Unmarried does not mean single.
Hello,
For every problem there is a solution that it simple, elegant, intuitive, and wrong. Yours is exactly like that. Not only is it heartless, it is inefficient, because starving people will do anything to not starve, especially in a country like the USA with ample resources everywhere. I let you guess what they will do.
So yes, society has a problem. The solutions to solve (or at least stave off) this problem are all around you. They are being discussed in this very forum.
You don't know anything, CSS. Have you even *bothered* to look at the statistics or do you make them out of pure prejudice?
I know many poor that could not garden if their life depended on it since their living situation does not provide any land to do so. Maybe out in the country, but certainly not in the city in high density housing where many of these people live. Some areas don't even have grocery stores. For example, most grocery stores have left many of the poor areas, leaving few choices for healthy food.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Easy, wrong target. The women tend to be vastly more reasonable, educated and sensible than the men who lied to them and left them when kid #1 showed up. And then did not comply with their parental obligations. In fact we should trust and empower poor women much more. In many developing country, microcredit has been proposed as a solution to poverty. The thing is, microcredit is only given to women, particularly mothers. They don't tend to dilapidate it on pointless/hopeless pursuits.
All of the fat asses will have less food. If they want better nutrition maybe they should get a better job.
Well, one small problem... okay, a couple:
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.)
Most of these mothers have a shit education courtesy of public schooling (assuming the mother actually completed high school - usually she didn't), so "dinner" usually means fast-food takeout, or whatever the local bodega has in the way of food (imagine growing up on convenience store burritos and soda every night...)
Jobs suck in depressed areas - triply so if you have no education.
Moving (or even saving up enough money to do that) is a trial at best - especially when you consider that most "services" in depressed areas are geared towards screwing over the poor (see also payday loans, credit cards, etc).
Finally, the capper: government assistance sucks. It is geared towards insuring that once you are on it, you never come off of it. The moment you start making any money, you get taxed hard, you lose the assistance funding, and they kick you out of that government-assisted housing. Oh, and since you haven't the education or funds to access tax specialists or any other real option, you're basically fucked and stuck.
Now this isn't always the case - with the help of family, you can pull yourself out of such straits. However, because family has been pretty much obliterated over the decades in these areas by the lack of fathers, and by an overweening demand by certain ideologues that family is an anachronism? Well, it's part of how you wind up with a permanent underclass. ...and no one seems to want to fix this. The right wants to cut down funds in order to force initiative and drive, while the left wants to smooth over it with more money. To be honest, neither answer is correct - but a hybrid of the two would work well, if done right. Put a time limit on the funds, but require the recipient take classes, look for work, etc - then provide enough assistance towards the end so that the newly-working single mother isn't faced with instant penalties just for making a paycheck.
It's strange that almost every Chinatown I've been to, is usually made up of poor immigrants, many uneducated, and lots who are actually illegal... yet, I have yet to go to one that didn't have dozens of grocery stores in such a small space that are much cheaper than supermarkets in terms of meat and vegetables.
How are they able to do it, yet ghettos can't do it?
Sure, because not-having-sex-until-marriage is a totally realistic option for horny teenagers. I'm not saying you shouldn't encourage them to leave sex for later when they are a big older, I'm telling you they won't. Usually that bs about leaving sex for mariage also includes not telling about birth controll and family planning at all. It's all religious "children will be born in marriage, if god lets them, who are you to decide how many you can afford" propaganda. What happened to free will and the ability to think and make choices? Yes, they can make the choice to not have sex, some might. What about in a marriage? You just keep on popping out kids untill you are at 8 or 9 and too busy to make more?
I'm all for promoting steady reletionships, and fatherhood, but not for religious reasons, I'm also aware of the fact that family planning, birth control, steady reletionships, and farherhood don't exclude eachothers. It's just the stupid religious organizations(who really might honestly think they are doing good) refusing to see the reality, and what's best for inviduals and society as a whole.
"As Brad Plumer of the Washington Post explained in September 2012, by far the largest group of recipients, with money sent to them directly by checks, is not, as conservatives assume, single mothers. No, 53 percent of direct cash entitlements go to people over 65 years old. Another 20 percent goes to disabled people and another 18 percent to working people, leaving only 9 percent for non-disabled, non-working people that conservatives like to pretend make up the bulk of recipients of social spending."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/10/single-mothers-are-not-america-s-real-welfare-queens.html I don't believe it completely but it's worth a read.
Also; $2billion per year ($20billion) leading to an increase of $15 billion in health care costs over 10yrs. Now cutting over 10yrs cutting $20 billion and costing $15 still leaves $5billion in the black. BUT...
This is only part of the cost you must remember that there are social, criminal and learning impacts of low nutrition. Ie. "Poor Nutrition Leads To Low IQ" http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041021205759data_trunc_sys.shtml
Cutting food stamps is not the answer, how about;
1) stop paying farmers to plough food into the ground.
2) stop subsidies in general, embrace capitalism (stop pretending).
3) realize that class immobility is at an all time high.
4) put some bankers in jail, am look carefully at the Dallas feds recommendation for "too big to fail companies"
5) reform the senate, bunch of do nothing monkeys
6) reform the lobby system
As a non-American, I was unfamiliar with this food stamp program (we don't have specific food-oriented services here in my country, it's up to the local communities and cities to provide welfare benefits).
However, when I look at the number of participants per state, I notice the rural states (Wyoming, etc.) are way lower: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
My question: why is this so? Is it a problem of logistics, or is the average American farmer better off than the ones who live in the cities?
For MacDonalds, Walmart and other corps
"How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html
You mean 20 cent on a $300 bill
If they are strapped for cash why not just cut the defence budget? Jesus tap dancing christ on a popsicle stick, that shit is hundreds of billions worth and deserves to be cut if the food stamps get cut.
The heck are you going to do with all them nukes and guns when people are dropping left right and center from starvation and or diseases???
have you seen the stuff these schlubs buy while on SNAP? thanks, Obama! you're killing American children!
Cause that has worked out bloody well hasnt it?!
Yes. Otherwise you promote ghettos and generations of dependence. At some point you got to stop caring more about someone else's situation then they do themselves.
Yes because kids living in ghettos and other low income communities have such better prospects staying in the ghetto with their mother.
How is it punishment to have conditions on what you can do if you want to receive hand outs? If my sister asks for my help paying her rent she damn well better not go and move into a more expensive apartment.
Yeah. Lets just do it for everyone at the age of ten until they have a valid child bearing license! Surely that will go over well....
"Food stamps feed 1 in 7 Americans"
We need to address the root causes that so many Americans need financial assistance to the point where they require food stamps to start with.
Until the root causes are identified and dealt with the cost of such programs will only continue to go up.
Of course dealing with the root causes will be too painful or politically inexpedient (ie. the decline of K-12 education and the outsourcing of every job that can be outsourced overseas) so the politicians and Americans will focus on the symptoms instead of the cures.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
No, they should have their tubes tied. Kill the problem at its source.
And what if the girl had five children and her husband died or walked out and now she's scrambling for a way to help pay for her family? You going to deny that woman too? Where do you draw the line? Do you know what will happen if she's charged with child endangerment? Her children will be taken from her home and placed into the system. Now you will be paying five additional people to look after her children plus pay for those children to eat and be able to seek medical care.
The Reps continue to treat science, scientific facts and data as hokum, as Sheldon would say. Remember, some of them think humans lived with dinosaurs...
> Not only is it heartless
Irrelevant appeal to emotion. He should have the right to be heartless with his money. If you can enforce compassion, you can enforce any other type of religion.
> especially in a country like the USA with ample resources
We're not talking about sharing natural resources. We're talking about forced sharing of the fruits of somebody's hard work against his will with people he doesnt like. It is indistinguishable from mugging.
Sounds great, the government would just be a really big food bank then. Except Republicans would never go for that because it would put grocery stores out of business.
When the majority of the stores folks on Food Stamps can get to are Stop and Rob type stores and not actual grocery stores we have a problem that SNAP customers are being charged more (even counting not being taxed).
Also i would say that most Job programs are a Sick Joke (hint putting somebody through a 15 page signup form so that they can fill out an 8 page form just to get to the line "Do you have a Felony record?? If Yes explain in detail" which actually means DO NOT BOTHER WITH THE REST OF THE FORM YOU AIN'T GETTING A JOB THAT ISN'T SLAVE LABOR) and not doing what the PolCritters are selling this as. We created 70,000 new jobs ! (that are 15 hours a week at maybe a nickel above minimum wage and you can't say anything because they will on the spot fire you).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Cue the libtard's squealing "racist" in 3, 2, 1.
Well, if the shoe fits...
Actually the pill and condensed are free. Hell, I can walk in to a local head shop I know and they have a large tub of them for free.....
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job.
Nah, just have another kid, somebody will have to pay for it. Just don't put the dad's name on the birth certificate, because the state might try to put a dent in his drinking money.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Was also found to be completely disproven...
The rumors in the book continue to this very day.
The USDA was founded because meat packers wanted a stamp to ease Europeans tensions regarding american meat after it was published but no evidence or first hand witnesses where ever found to back up the clams in the book.
That depends, you didn't make it clear in your original post, but quite a few seem to think that if these people just learned to suck dick to get a whole 20 hours a week scheduled at walmart they wouldn't need welfare.
Pretty sure sucking dick pays more than Walmart. Well, depending on how you look, I guess.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
From the synopsis:
Just so we're clear, Democrats also want to cut SNAP/Food Stamps, just not as much as Republicans do.
So $2 Billion/year cuts in Food Stamps leads to a $1.5 Billion/year increase in healthcare costs - sounds like a way to save a half billion dollars/year... Put another way, we need to spend $2 Billion in food subsidies to save $1.5 Billion in healthcare costs.
Ken
Not helping costs more than giving them money.
"Conservatives" don't care about saving money, especially if saving money accidentally helps the poor.
In fact, putting them in prison takes more tax money and gives it to owners of private prisons - even better in a "conservative" view.
They shit on welfare recipients, but because of their religious idiocy, they refuse to take PROVEN steps to help prevent people from requiring so much extra financial help.
Actually, they shit on the system that produces welfare recipients, not the people. And religion is their solution, because it teaches people about long-held human moral principals like don't have kids out of wedlock, families should stick together, and communities should help each other.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
While loosing the Auto Industry didn't help Detroit. The Top Down Economic Polices of it's government killed it. The model cities program and other let the government plan everything out, put an end to all industries and sent small business packing. There was a time in Detroit where the City would have to okay you to open a coffee shop in an unused retail space, not just sign some licences and safety inspections but decide if it fitted their "vision" for the city. That's what killed property values. Dumb politicians making dumb chooses. It was Communist style economics plan and simple. Yes, it's true that if the city had sane financial planning it wouldn't be bankrupt ether way.
It's something even better: Prevention.
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents?
It's the mothers themselves that do this. They typically refuse to name the father, because the state will then go after him for child support. What's your solution to that? This whole "Won't someone please think of the children" appeal is effective, but it's just used to support policies that destroy communities from the inside.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This whole thing is based on a flawed argument. It assumes that cutting food stamps will lead to decreased nutrition. That is truly a possibility, however, it is only one of many. It is also a possibility to tighten up the controls on food stamps without hurting nutrition at all. Usually this is accomplished by eliminating waste and fraud in the program.
The issue is not about the cuts, but how the cuts are made.
I would like to point out. That the lack of home economics classes are also troubling. I can hear the screams of feminists, but if they think anyone man or women can raise a family with 2+ kids on health food and work unskilled labor. There nuts. We need to teach poor people how to care for themselves instead of how to do nothing and get paid. Am not against helping single mothers buy decent food, but they need to be able to sew the tears in their kids cloths and cook a meal.
Also, what your saying if the people in charge actually cared to make the programs work, one way or another, things could improve. But they really don't care ether one.
People always complain "They only get $240/month". Guess what? That's bigger than my food budget for my family of 4. And no, we don't eat out that often. And this $240 is suppose to be supplemental. That means the person needs to be contributing also.
When 1 in 7 is using food stamps, there's a problem. Aren't we supposed to be in the middle of an economic recovery, with unemployment at 6.7% and falling? Why is food stamp use growing at and unprecedented rates?
Because employers today factor in government assistance when calculating their compensation programs? I really don't know, but I do something is seriously wrong when people who are willing to work can not make a living wage.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Interesting sentence, let's break it down:
First, let's tackle this one:
First off, where are the bulk of food stamp benefits going, to "the ghetto" or to millions and millions of struggling Americans in the suburbs?
Second - "Grocery stores are a bit rare"? Are you sure?
Third - "and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety":
Source: Food Deserts and Obesity Role Challenged in Studies
Source: Food Deserts and Obesity Role Challenged in Studies
Finally, "(and don't ask about the produce.)" - why not? is it because, as I suspect, it isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be?
Do you know what it means to qualify for a "free lunch"? It means that 1/3rd of the child's daily meals are provided by a school cafeteria, prepared by chefs, and designed by nutritionists. It also means they qualify for a free hot breakfast at school in the morning in many cities. That's 2/3rds of the child's meals provided for FREE, in addition to SNAP/Food Stamp programs.
Every month the federal government air lifts in millions of dollars into "ghettos" as part of a program designed to only pay for food - don't you think that would attract a few food retailers?
Ken
There is a "certain religion" that continues to forbid contraception. To them conception is the "supreme being's choice", not something to be decided by mortals. Still, if you are willing to trash the idea of freedom of religion I'll back you 100%! There has exist point where sense trumps nonsense.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Lets talk statistics.
When people get educated, they have less children.
When people have lots of other entertainment options they have less children.
When people make above median income they have less children.
When people are subjected to 'good' sexual education they have less children.
When people live in poverty they have more children.
When people are uneducated they have more children.
When peoples income limits their entertainment options, they have more chidren.
When people do not have good sexual education provided, they have more children.
It's almost like personal responsibility has not a goddamned thing to do with it.
Oh, and the 5 kids on welfare thing is pretty much a myth. Only a very small percentage of households are over 4 people on welfare (like 2%). As for quit blaming the system, If I followed you around, I'd bet I'd watch you blame the 'system' 10 times a day on shit that is out of your control.
1 in 7 on food stamps? How does this not resemble 3rd world dependency politics? From Oakland to Appalachia, we've placated generations of poor with tax schemes and handouts while simultaneously robbing them of economic opportunities. Killing rural jobs in coal, gas, and mining, while hustling throngs of dependent Americans into inner city 'poverty zones' seems to be the modis operandi of our ruling class.
Sometimes it seems to be about the moral self-esteem of our more liberal Americans than the efficacy of their programs or the plight of the poor. How can you advocate for the powerless while you stomp all over their only means to attain some modicum of power?
Really? According to Obama the healthcare cost are because of people making false claims.
On a side note. Do you use generic medication? Did the pharmicist tell you it was the same thing? If it's the same thing, then why is it so different? Taste is different, look is different, and the price is much different; sometimes it's hundreds of dollars less per prescription.
Some people will tell you they are the same, except for the candy coating, the packaging; but if that is true, then it means the huge proce differences is all because of that. That means they are lying to you about the real cost of healthcare; it's not the medicine that cost so much money, its the cherry flavor. Somehow I don't believe that.
On the other hand, it could be the active ingredients that are different. But if that's the case, then they really aren't the same, and you need to be wondering what you are putting into your body. What are the side effects?
Or, maybe they are lying about the healthcare costs, AND the active ingredients. Either way they are lying about something.
Which of those do you think the filthy rich will be using? Yeah, me too, and I had to special order it since my pharamacy does not normally carry the more expensive one.
I'm going to have both analyzed and find out the real difference.
So you're saying the poor are animals who cannot fathom abstinence? Nice attitude you have there.
No, he said that birth control isn't free. Which is a fact.
That you've extrapolated the obvious conclusion to... whatever it is you're trying to say, tells us more about you than it says about GP.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It will also be the backbone of their diet in the process. It won't just be empty calories but will be a good chunk of most of what they need to live on since we are mammals.
Lots of people cannot consume milk past infancy. Most of the population of the world actually. About 30-50 million people in the US are lactose intolerant including 75% of Native Americans and 90% of those of Asian descent. Worldwide about 65% of people have some form of lactose intolerance. The percentage of people in north america and europe that can consume milk products without ill effects is actually unusually high.
Also bear in mind that most milk is heavily subsidized in price. The real price of a gallon of milk is somewhere closer to $4-$8 per gallon. Even higher for organic stuff.
You also can't easily replace that calcium.
You do not need milk or milk products to get the needed amount of calcium. There are plenty of fortified foods with extra calcium. Dark leafy greens are an excellent source as are sardines, soybeans, tofu, oranges, sesame seeds, almonds, salmon, white beans, figs, broccoli, and quite a few other foods. The notion that you need milk to get adequate calcium is easily and demonstrably not true.
'If you're interested in saving health care costs, the dumbest thing you can do is cut nutrition,'
Right - because sooo much of food stamp spending goes on veggies and vitamins.
Actually the pill and [condoms?] are free.
No they aren't.
When my wife and I were dating, a couple of broke-ass college students trying to make ends meet on less than $22,000/yr, we had to pay about $60 a month for her birth control. Early on we could have gotten those cheap, impossible to trust off-brand condoms from Planned Parenthood for free, but they started charging for them a few scant months after we got together. They still weren't expensive, but when you've got 2 people surviving on less than $13/hr, every penny starts to matter.
Here's the part that blows my mind: Now that we're both educated, employed adults, who can actually afford to pay $60/month for medication.... they give it to us for free.
WTF, my fellow Americans; WTF.
Hell, I can walk in to a local head shop I know and they have a large tub of them for free.....
Yea, because everywhere is exactly like where you live, and everyone is exactly like you. Or you've got your head too far up your ass to see the forest for the trees... tough call. /sarc
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Where is the child support from the father of the child? Let's not stereo type the girl too fast. For every pregnant girl there is a baby daddy.
I don't necessarily agree with the welfare system, it rewards some laziness and irresponsibility. There are good and honest people who go to it as a last resort, but once on it, it is extremely difficult to get back off of it. Ask anyone who has tried. You're practically punished for trying to be free of it.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
No money. No food. Starve. Die. Problem solved.
Or the lower classes could join together, rise up, murder the rich people in horrific ways, and redistribute all their stuff.
Which do you think is more likely to happen? Ask yourself, if you were in the poor's worn-out shoes, would you just roll over and die, or try to do something about it?
FWIW, History is on my side here.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We're not talking about sharing natural resources. We're talking about forced sharing of the fruits of somebody's hard work against his will with people he doesnt like. It is indistinguishable from mugging.
Let me guess: You're one of those people who bitches endlessly about how all types of taxation are "mugging," then bitch even louder the first time you can't get your Social Security check on time because a road crew is fixing the street in front of your house.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
To be fair, there's also that not-having-sex-until-marriage part>
Realistic things like that.
Tell us how you never had sex until marriage.
Better yet, tell us how the Constitution grants you the right to dictate how everyone else is allowed to live, while simultaneously protecting your right to not do what anyone else says.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Every "welfare day" all I see at the grocery store are big, enormous, fat people buying twinkies, ho-hos, frozen pizza, and other junk food with EBT cards.
I spend less money on groceries than I would get from SNAP, and I feed my family fresh, nutritious foods. I'm sick of hearing this bullshit about how government doesn't give out enough handouts and oh my how terrible is it that we're staaarving people to death? These people can get jobs. There are millions of vacant positions in this country for skilled and unskilled labor alike.
The problem is that government is paying more and more for people not to work, and now we have a labor participation rate we have not seen since Carter's disaster in the 1970s.
You have no idea. The point is they don't just sit there and starve to death; they will do anything to stay alive. They will become thugs, they will rob and rape and wreak havoc.
If you think you have no right to kill him, it may be to your benefit to give him some spare food, so he will not jump on you and take away all else you have. If you let him survive and get a reasonable education, perhaps he'll become useful to the society.
There will be societal costs when you try to save this money, and it's not the richest, who don't pay tax yet can still get the best protection from the system, that will take the most damage. It will be you, the middle or upper-middle class bystander who doesn't walk with a bodyguard that will be the first target of an assault.
Law and morality serve to regulate the behaviour of people, but only by acting along with human nature, not under the foolish assumption that people will play along regardless of how the law is written.
The uneducated single mother probably has 5 kids so she can get that free money.
1986 called, it wants its argument back.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms. If you get pregnant again you will be dropped from welfare and charged with child endangerment."
Why should people that are themselves dependents have the right to create more dependents with no consequences?
Ironically, it is the right-wingers who would look down on her and cluck their tongues at her life choices, who would then turn around and deny her access to abortion and birth-control. Family Values!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I buy 3-pound bags of frozen chicken for $5, and 3-pound bags of frozen hamburgers for $10.
Your purchasing of frozen products is in all likelihood a false economy. If you want real economy, you buy whole animals or primals and butcher yourself. Any times you pay to have someone butcher or package the food for you, the price goes up. Buy a whole ham or chicken and use the entire product and you'll save a lot more money than anything you normally get from a freezer.
You can buy a 4lb whole fresh chicken for $6-7 if you don't mind doing the butchering yourself. You can pretty much use the whole chicken including the bones. I rarely buy pre-cut chickens anymore and I use the entire bird, including the bones (for stock). Taste is FAR better than anything you will ever get from the freezer section.
Around here ground beef costs around $2.25-2.75 per pound, fresh from the butcher. If you are getting frozen patties for that amount of money you very likely can get better product for less money.
I'd have to know more about this to unpack it, but my own experience is that buying frozen food is much cheaper than anything else except for rice, beans, and flower. Nutritionally, there is no reason to pick fresh food over frozen food.
Nutritionally you are generally correct but if you are purchasing seasonally then you'll find that frozen foods are frequently not any cheaper. It might be more convenient and sometimes is actually a better option for stuff like peas. Sure if you insist on buying strawberries in November in the midwest USA, you'll pay more. However if you purchase in season, utilize farmer's markets, and actually carefully watch prices you usually can beat frozen food prices and with some exceptions you'll get tastier food as well.
And religion is their solution, because it teaches people about long-held human moral principals like don't have kids out of wedlock, families should stick together, and communities should help each other.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Most of them spend their hour with Jesus on Sunday (an extra one on Wednesday for the AoG scammers), and the minute they hit the fucking parking lot, they go back to being the same selfish, narcissistic assclowns they are every other day of the week. I get to see the behavior regularly, by virtue of the fact my home is surrounded by churches; I've learned that leaving the house at noon on a Sunday is just not going to happen, because most of those goodly "Christians" would sooner run you into the ditch than let you out of your own fucking driveway.
You can talk about all the moralistic high-ground as you want, but until that talk translates into actually helping people, you're not accomplishing anything except paying lip-service. To me, that's worse than doing nothing at all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
See: food desert. The lack of good grocery stores in poor (and rural) areas is a real problem in the US.
Also, not everyone on food stamps is staying home all day with nothing to do but cook. A lot of them are working (possibly two jobs), and may not have the time/energy to also cook.
would it be unfair to limit the types of foods that one could buy with food stamps? For example, no cigarettes, no booze, no "junk food" (certainly a broad category but it's at start). I'm not suggesting this to be mean spirited. I'm suggesting this to promote healthy eating. Healthy eating is better for them and better for society in general. Healthy food does not necessarily cost more than junk food. It's a matter of education and making good choices.
Because black people do not create wealth. They destroy wealth. White people create wealth. It's about productivity, or lack thereof. Look around the globe, look at all black-run cities/nations - there's not one of them where the standard of living isn't at the bottom of the scale and headed down. South Africa is just a nation-sized Detroit. Diversity= end of civilization. Whatever the reasons, the truth is plain to those who aren't willfully blind to it. Cue the libtard's squealing "racist" in 3, 2, 1.
Racist? I'm going with neanderthal. This attitude is so primitive and obsolete I'm surprised your genetics are still viable.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I hate to be reduced to it, but THIS. So much this.
People blame someone else because they do not want to take responsibility for their actions. That is human nature and it's been happening for 1000's of years. It's easier and more convenient to blame someone else. The real problems do not get resolved when you fail to see accept the actual cause.
Your statistics have no direct relationship on someones motivation or personal responsibility. If people took responsibility for their lives and realized their action or inaction have consequences, a lot of what you mention above would fall into place. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink. Education is not related to the amount of kids you have. That is 100% personal responsibility. You can use the liquor store on every corner in the hood as an example. Those stores are there because people are buying from them and the owners are able to make money. You can blame the liquor stores as the cause of the problem but you will never solve the real actual problem going that route.
Congress continually reauthorizes food stamps, that's pretty much what the whole article is about.
Children are a choice, and while I'm actually fine with feeding the poor as an alternative to spending more on them, let's never pretend that stupid people deserve respect.
Everyone deserves respect, even you.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
So you're saying that poor people simply need to stop fucking? Genius! Why did nobody think of this before? Oh, right...it doesn't work
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
When 1 in 7 is using food stamps, there's a problem. Aren't we supposed to be in the middle of an economic recovery, with unemployment at 6.7% and falling? Why is food stamp use growing at and unprecedented rates?
Because employers today factor in government assistance when calculating their compensation programs?
That's part of it, as we've seen with companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's.
Another issue is that "employed" does not necessarily equal "making enough money to feed your family." Under-employment is a serious issue here, often compounded by the aforementioned corporate calculations.
Hell, even Fortune 500 employees are getting the shaft; I know one person in particular that's worked at the same company for 15 years who, thanks to inflation and ever-increasing insurance rates, actually brings home less money today than she did when she started.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
For additional perspective, I participated in a hackathon in NYC last spring that focused on food insecurity in Newark, NJ. The problem was that in many poorer parts of Newark there are virtually no supermarkets and no produce to be had. Most people had to get food at corner delis because they did not have cars and could not get to a larger market. Now the problem was, none of the food at the delis had price tags, and no receipts were given after purchase. So the deli owners could and did charge ridiculous prices like $4/lb for apples at the beginning of the month, when everyone got their SNAP benefits, and then extend credit with interest to customers at the end of the month when those benefits had been exhausted. So everyone was under the thumb of their local deli owner and you had to keep good relations with him or he could decide to charge you $7/lb for apples or refuse to extend you credit to get you through the end of the month. It was difficult for us techies to wrap our heads around, but the problem is real and pernicious. There are places in this country where large numbers of people suffer under food slavery, and cutting the SNAP benefits they rely on compounds the problem severely.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Because we do not want to limit foodstamp recipients to just healthy food, we allow them to purchase pretty much anything except beer and cigarettes (and foodstamps are often used for those anyway; and consider that when alcohol & cigarettes are purchased "legally" with earned income by foodstamp recipients, we have effectively subsidized that purchase--they could have used that money to buy food, but we gave them money for food which enabled them to have a few extra bucks for beer & cigarettes). Beer & cigarettes aside, the anything goes for foodstamps leads to several problems. We see foodstamps now allowed to be used at McDonalds. The states of Florida, California, Arizona and Michigan already allow select restaurants like Golden Corral, McDonald's, Subway, some Yum! properties (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut and Long John Silver's) and others to accept food stamps. We see hipsters on foodstamps (http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/). “I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.” And we see a strong correlation between foodstamps and obesity. "Participation in the FSP in each of the previous five years compared to no participation over that time period was associated with approximately a 20.5% increase in the predicted probability of current obesity."
I wouldn't be surprised if any conservatives in charge actually want to increase medical costs if only to make any of Obama's health initiatives more likely to fail or look bad.
You can talk about all the moralistic high-ground as you want, but until that talk translates into actually helping people, you're not accomplishing anything except paying lip-service. To me, that's worse than doing nothing at all.
While I like to bash Americans as much as the next guy, I do think this is a weak point, as there is evidence that Americans do help others through charity. Below are two links obtained from a quick serach
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
http://philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Divide/133775
But I suppose both you and the stats can be correct. Maybe Americans treat people far away from them nice through charity, while they treat each other and people close by like crap ;p
"Poor starving 3rd world children? Gotta help them!"
"Poor people on my street? Screw 'em!"
How is it punishment to have conditions on what you can do if you want to receive hand outs?
Well, considering that the definition of "punishment" is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense..."
But I think you've missed the point - the "conditions on you can do if you want to receive [welfare]*" are applied to the mother, but the child still suffers for it.
* How can you call it a hand-out when you already admitted it's conditional? Do you not know what the term 'hand-out' actually means?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
My city has a long-standing "free food at school for poor kids" program, and it's a wonderful thing - a lot of these kids will tell you, the only actual meals they get are the ones they're fed at school.
Pisses the narcissist crowd off to no end, but fuck 'em. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but I'm not a fucking monster who would rather starve children than, say, reign in corporate welfare or put reasonable campaign finance rules in place.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
From the actual article: "a growth in government and private sector medical costs for diabetes alone of nearly $15 billion over10 years".
Your conclusion is correct... if diabetes is the only effect ever.
Are you really OK with letting a child go hungry, even though their parent might be negligent, when the hunger can be fairly easily fixed?
Yes. Otherwise you promote ghettos and generations of dependence. At some point you got to stop caring more about someone else's situation then they do themselves.
Cause and effect are foreign concepts to you, aren't they?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
One that that has occurred to me is that children cause poverty in a very real sense.
A single person with no children working full time at even minimum wage would certainly would not be living in the lap of luxury, but he or she would be about 30% above the poverty line (often cited as 130% of the poverty line).
Add a child and that equation is reversed and that family is now living in poverty earning about 97% of the poverty line. Add a second child and the picture is much dimmer, as that family is now living on 77% of the poverty line.
A married couple with no children (or to be PC, a two-income household with no children) where both work full time at minimum wage would be living at 194% of the poverty line. But if they have 4 children, it drags that household down to 95% of poverty level.
Sorry Moosh, but you obviously don't know anyone who lives in a ghetto. Nearly all of the neighborhoods grocery stores have been closed for over a decade, the one store that still exists has the creepiest looking packaged meat you've ever seen, and your idea of knowing how to cook must involve eating hamburger helper every night. My experience with my poor friends is the opposite of your claims.
between global warming, anti-charter school articles and now this, slashdot has turned into a mouthpiece for liberals.
For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.
Any number of sources (e.g. www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined) will highlight the fact that the poor in the US are living a lifestyle that is better than the lifestyle of middle-class is some other countries (the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom, for instance). The U.S. Department of Agriculture collects data on these topics in its household food security survey. For 2009, the survey showed:
* 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
* 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
* 82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
People living below the poverty line in the US often have their own home, cars, air-conditioning, big-screen TVs, playstation, computers, microwave ovens, dishwashers, cable TV, smart phone, high-speed internet.
We're talking about using food stamps to maintain a lifestyle, not preventing people from starving.
OK, I am sick and tired of all of you not understanding the "myth". Have you been on food welfare or so poor ? Almost certainly not. Firstly I have worked for long hour for next to no pay. Then I had no pay so I could not afford a fridge, an oven, and other stuff to store food. And i had no time. At the end of working 10+hours you fucking want to go to sleep and no spend 1 or 2 hours again gathering stuff you cannot store and prepare them.
It is not only the raw price which count, it is the time, and the tools needed to prepare food which *all together* make the cheap food you cite , out of grasp.
As soon as i got enough money for a fridge, oven, *and* time (working then only 8h for the same total loan) I got much better.
frankly, its not my fault they are stupid
No, but it is your fault that you're ignorant.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There was no college football played this weekend. The FBS championship was played Jan 6th and was the last game played in that division. The FCS championship was played Jan 4th and was the last game played in that division. The Division 2 championship was played Dec 21st and was the last game played in that division. The Division 3 championship was played Dec 20 and was the last game played in that division.
What was this local University that had a flyover this weekend again?
Claims not completely proven != completely disproven...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Therefore was spending $6-$7 every workday on lunch at Wendy's.
A loaf of bread and some peanut butter is no worse nutritionally and is a LOT cheaper and does not require refrigeration.
Which meant the $117 had to buy the other 1,000-1,500 calories a day or I'd fucking die of starvation. That meant pop and candy. With all this I still ended up losing like 40-50 pounds.
You can get 1000 calories in a just one triple whopper from Burger King. Claiming you needed pop and candy to survive is complete nonsense. That just means you didn't want to think very hard about it. Getting lots of calories is not difficult or expensive these days, even for someone without much income.
With all this I still ended up losing like 40-50 pounds.
Which means you were severely malnourished and/or were overweight to begin with. Given the diet you shared I'm think both are probably true.
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Rules 1 and 3 are useless to me because I can't afford 'food,' and I can't store vegetables.
There are plenty of vegetables that have minimal or no refrigeration requirements and are extremely affordable. First off there are tons of very inexpensive canned options which do not require any refrigeration of any kind and are good for you. Tomatoes, dried beans, rice, grains, onions, potatoes, squash, sweet potatoes, bananas, apples, and many many more. The only way you can legitimately claim you can't store vegetables of any kind is if you are homeless.
You know, if not for the fact that our government gives multi-billion dollar, highly-profitable corporations orders of magnitude more welfare dollars than what they spend on keeping the poorest Americans from starving, I might actually give a shit when someone bitches about what people buy with food stamps.
Seriously - you're pissing and moaning about not letting people starve? Well, until I see you at one of those 'end oil company subsidies' protests, I'm going to ignore your selfish ass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
Sorry you feel the need to attack and insult someone else so you can feel justified in your self-rightous fervor. FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute? Other than say "Dur, the Salvation Army exists!" and call people names, that is.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well, all the costs involved with imprisonment do get included in the GDP.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
OK, I see what you mean. You didn't mean to imply oatmeal was on the buzzfeed list. I get it now (after hitting Submit of course).
Anyway, oatmeal. Good. Rice? Not so much. Why? Glycemic index. I've know this first hand. I was raised eating enriched long-grain rice. As an adult, I figured out that my tendency to "crash" after dinner was directly correlated to eating rice for dinner.
I've moved towards eating less white rice, and only eating it at lunch when I'm not tired and won't crash. I've tried brown rice, but it seems to do the same thing at dinner, even though they claim it has a lower GI (however, that's a recent experiment possibly ruined by the fact that I had a cold when I tried it).
A lot of the cheap foods you mention have a high GI or are starchy. Maybe "wild" rice can be had cheaply without the high GI, but now we're cycling back to things that the poor and uneducated won't figure out. Heck it took me long enough, and I've got a batchelor's degree. I've known professionals doing much better than me money-wise; but they have terrible diets.
Anyway, I get what you said. Aside from all that, calories/dollar is obviously not the only metric you should use. You need veggies and proteins, which will result in fewer calories/dollar, but less chance of diabetes from eating cheap starches and sugars all the time.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"? Because that was your assertion, which the link, with all those Christian organizations helping the poor, and all that money going to do it, must come from ... somewhere? Is it a bunch of atheists donating to those Christian organizations? They sure as hell aren't getting it from government bureaucrats.
FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Things Republicans have done that have helped out the 99% of Americans:
1) Freed the slaves
2) Gave women the right to vote
3) Protected the right of people to bear arms in defence of themselves and their homes
4) Protected the right of individuals to increase their personal wealth and wellbeing in a legally recognized manner
Things the Democrats have done to undercut the 99% while appealing to an ignorant populist message:
1) Defend slavery
2) Defend union protection of jobs against poorer people who would like to do that work
3) Subjugate millions to the control of bureaucracy in return for bread and circuses
Food is not medicine. Just continuing to implement the nanny state is a huge stressor on society, as is the never ending stream of lies from the modern Democrats -- and stress is a huge factor in illnesses of all kinds. Stop voting to force other people to take care of you -- from healthcare to welfare to SS to food stamps to a "free education" to the 2nd amendment. Stop calling things free -- anything worth doing or having requires effort and has costs. Just reforning the IRS income tax code (over 70,000 pages of regulations) would likely cut the annual budget deficit in half -- but they won't do it. Why? Because both sides of the aisle have bloated the code with giveaways for their friends. Not sure what the answers are, but more incentives for the private sector and less dependence on the federal government is a good start.
Compare "poverty" in the US to the real poverty billions live in around the world. The vast majority of the people in the US living in "poverty" would be the richest person in many villages around the world.
While there may indeed be a disparity between haves and have nots, there is the fundamental question of what separates them? Why do people with nearly identical backgrounds, educational opportunity, etc. have such wildly different levels of success? There are far too many stories of people getting out of the ghetto or out of the mining town or getting off welfare to be ignored--those people did something different from those around them, took advantage of the opportunities in front, the people left behind didn't. Whose "fault" is that?
When Obama says "you didn't build that", he tried to backpedal and say he meant the infrastructure, the educational system. The same infrastructure is in place for everyone, education is available for everyone (I understand there are variances here, but people succeed within the same setting while others fail). What *prevents* people from taking advantage of the opportunities in front of them, what *prevents* them from making good choices? Nothing.
Sorry Moosh, but you obviously don't know anyone who lives in a ghetto. Nearly all of the neighborhoods grocery stores have been closed for over a decade, the one store that still exists has the creepiest looking packaged meat you've ever seen, and your idea of knowing how to cook must involve eating hamburger helper every night. My experience with my poor friends is the opposite of your claims.
Well, I guess different ghettos end up having different characteristics. Our south side of town is a food paradise - cheap produce and meat and lots of variety. Everywhere else here there are national supermarkets which focus on selling packaged foods as "on sale!" items and gouging on the produce and meats.
Also people are focused on creating soul food and focused on social food gatherings that there is a cooking culture. So, grocery store that sell produce and meat are able to thrive.
In California, food stamps can't be used to buy hot food that is sold by a grocery store. I've pulled out my wallet a few times and paid the bill, because I could see what the mother was trying to buy for her child with a food stamp card wasn't junk food. Maybe they don't have a working stove at home. Conversely, and this is the insanity - food stamp cards can be used in many fast-food restaurants in California. So this same mother who can't buy her kid a bowl of hot soup from the deli at a grocery store can buy him a hamburger, fries and a soda at Jack in the Box. This is such twisted logic.
When these people have a kid, there is no incentive to not have another one. Most reasonable people should know what they can and can not afford and provide for themselves.
How's that abstinence-only edumakashun working out for you?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I think it depends on the quality of the ghetto. I'll admit my friends' area (35th and Prospect, Kansas City) is especially blighted (what with drug dealers and prostitutes all over the main street), though my friends still have atrocious cooking habits and skills. I once brought a package of good steaks to one family's house, and the mom proceeded to marinate and destroy all of the natural flavor and then overcooked them. I no longer bring steaks. I think cooking skill is largely a personal thing, as my parents who are quite well off are amazing cooks.
There's the issue, too, that not *everyone* who faces these needs and consequences weren't initially adequately prepared for this.
There are a large number of people using government assistance who are educated, planned, and things were going great...until the plant shut down, or there was a catastrophic medical issue, or the financial system collapsed, or, you know, something. Yeah, a lot of people are born into poverty too, but it's not uniform.
So really the only solution is NOBODY have sex EVER because you MIGHT have an unintended consequence that you MIGHT not be able to pay for in case something goes wrong in your life.
Given the population of /. that solution is probably pretty moot already.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Why are we juxtaposing the food stamp costs against corporate welfare? Sure, the most recent Cato report on "corporate welfare" e.g., "$80 billion-a-year food stamp program or corporate welfare $100 billion a year?"
This is a false dichotomy, which frames the question as a an either/or issue, ignoring other alternatives.
I ask: "How about cutting or even eliminating both?"
I believe in the "beggars can't be choosers" school of thought. While I don't want anyone to starve, neither do I think that I should be required to effectively hand over cash so that the hungry can shop for whatever goodies they feel like--from roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes even up to fast-food! How about making food-stamp program a voucher for rice and beans, oatmeal and vitamins? Boring? Sure, but plenty nutritious, cheap and easy to cook so no one starves or goes malnourished. The lack of choice at the same time provides incentive to be able to afford something different. That's a "safety net" rather than a lifestyle subsidy.
Then we can cut corporate welfare at the same time.
According to that Cato report the single biggest item in the $100B corporate welfare list is FHA mortgage subsidies at $15.739B. Cut 'em.
Second largest is National Institute of Health, Applied R&D at $13.845B. Let big pharma do their own research. Cut it.
Third biggest is Farm Services Agency, which as far as I can read their documentation is farm loans, at $11.863B. Cut 'em.
"Energy supply and conservation" is another big one, at $9.834B. I can only guess at what they spend their money on, but I wouldn't be surprised to find Solyndra in that pile. Cut 'em.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $4.834B. Call those loans, then cut the program.
Foreign Military Financing, $5.2B. Cut it.
Small Business Administration (loans programs as far as I can tell), $3.157B. Cut em.
NASA, Applied R&D, $2.799B. Cut it.
Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program, $2.227B. Cut it.
High-speed rail, $1.251B. Cut it.
Below this you start getting into a few billion here and a few billion there. Cut it all!
Funny, though, there's no line item here "Shovel money into Wall Street coffers." I was convinced by liberals that this was the primary use of corporate welfare. OTOH, if you like all those programs above, then qwitcherbitchen about corporate welfare!
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"?
You mean, aside from pretty much anything any member of the Religious Right ever says?
Do I really need any more proof than that? I guess I could link a bunch of articles about how the "Christian" leadership of the town I live in are constantly trying to drive the Victory Mission out (a REAL Christian organization, look 'em up).
Actually, there you go - go find some articles on how the Reverend Larry Rice is received by his "Brothers in Christ." You might be shocked at how much hatred "Christians" have for a man whose goal in life is abolishing poverty and homelessness.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, you defend baby-sacrificing Bokonists, too? What about White Supremacists, or Neo-Nazis? You gonna defend them against unfair stereotypes as well?
See, here's your problem - you just want to be adversarial, which leads you to say ignorant shit because you don't know better. You ignore the fact that I make a distinction between people who are "Christian" in name only and the true Followers of Christ, because you're too busy being butthurt that someone said something you don't like about a group you've taken it upon yourself to defend, right or wrong.
That's on you, buddy, not me. Try to be more selective and thoughtful in the future.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
So... nothing then.
Shame, that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A 2012 Gallup poll found that prety much 40% of all Americans believe that or something close to it.
"The study notes that highly religious Americans "are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious" as 58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years (compared to 39 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats).
Agreed. Painful truth is that FDR instituded minimum wage so that we could ensure a better standard of living for the poorest among us than the communists... Irony is just amazing sometimes innit?
C|N>K
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Cohabiting is less than 10%. Unmarried usually means (more than 90% of the time) single.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I am sick and tired of people continously bringing up what has been shown over and over to be a very edge case and treating it like the norm, it is not the norm for ANY group to have 5+ kids in this century. I think you have your own example of long term idiocy.
Because child support orders can be higher than the income by the parent. Does that make any sense? If you loved someone, why would you sentence them to payments they couldn't afford?
Also, a single mother who names a father loses rights.
So if they intend to be with them forever, naming them harms them. And if they don't, the mother harms herself.
The system is designed to punish unmarried parents. Seems that's the cause of the problem you are complaining about.
Learn to love Alaska
They tried this in Canada. And no one knows what happened to many them. It is a continuing horror that has massive effects generations afterwards. People like you don't really get how often their half backed ideas, have been tried, tested and failed miserably.
> How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms.
That's fine in theory. Except for the fact that the people that want to gut Food Stamps also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning. The openly attack the private organizations that provide birth control pills and condoms to would be welfare mothers.
As a grandfather, let me assure you these private organizations aren't providing 'family planning'. They're colluding with, and encouraging, underage girls to have sex without their parents involvement and knowledge. "But it's 'family planning'" they say. Oh really, do those places meet the partners? hahahaha
I was once as naive as you. Now I'm a grandfather. At best, those places need WAY more oversight.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Correction you are fucking stupid. Children are a blessing, the most wonderful thing that can happen. Even so, stupid people like you deserve *compassion*.. You deserve this, even though you can't think clearly or learn anything except via your own tiny bubble of anecdotal evidence. This, in fact, ends up being the same thing you accuse others of and then claim they don't deserve what you do.
Then it's not a hand out, it's a job. "do this, and you'll be paid for your time, but your actions will be observed and if sub-standard, you'll be fired" That's not a hand out, that's a job. I think the problem is that we are in agreement that welfare is a bit poor right now. It's essentially a full-time job to sit at home unproductively for 1/10th minimum wage.
But you didn't address the point. The "conditions" harm the child if the parent doesn't perform. For your sister's situation, if she needs the money to stay where she is, but moves to a nicer place, so you cut her off, wouldn't that hurt her children? How do you punish the parent without performing worse punishment on the children?
Learn to love Alaska
Abstinence doesn't work because sex feels great.
...
God forbid we should ask people to be responsible for their actions and ... their own children.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger in an increase of $15 billion in medical costs
So medical costs have dropped $300 billion in the last 5 years? I rather doubt they've dropped at all. It seems to me if we've been increasing food stamps to help people, and food stamps have SOME SORT of correlation with medical costs, they should be SOME SORT of decease in medical costs over the last 5 years.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I think the point is that they are creating the system that produces welfare recipients, by depending on provably counterproductive moral principles such as abstinence and unlimited procreation in wedlock, regardless of income.
So you're saying it's pointless to "voluntarily abstain from sex until you're in a relationship where the couple are committed enough to care for a child"? If you have sex, then fine but be responsible for all the consequences. Abstaining until marriage is a 100% guarantee that no babies will happen.
And if we all work for the common good and refrain from selfish ambition, we can live in a Marxist utopia.
Marxism and abstinence-only edumakashun both fail, and for the same reasons. Now how about some policies that deal with people as they are, not how either Karl Marx or Pat Robertson would like them to be?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Not when you can buy Red Bull and twinkies on a food stamp card.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Number of elementary schools in an area usually determines (correlates strongly & inversely with) the number of prisons.
Turns out when most kids make it through sixth grade, they can get jobs instead of just robbing each other. Most of you are probably aware that it costs less to give a kid an elementary school education than house a prisoner. But that takes foresight, too.
A child still suffers if their parent commits a crime and goes away to jail. What's your point? Bad parents give their children bad childhoods. Not enforcing rationality on those expecting handouts because someone else might suffer is itself not rational. The parent isn't universally entitled to the money from the government nor is the government responsible should they chose to do something that results in those handouts going away and ends up hurting the children as collateral damage.
The point is you aren't punishing anyone. You aren't taking away THEIR money you are refusing to give them YOUR money should they not met your requirements. With the my sister analogy: she chose to break the rules of our agreement so she would be responsible for the consequences it has on her children. You aren't punishing people by refusing to help them regardless of how they've gotten themselves into the mess or whether or not they have made reasonable efforts to improve their situation.
I think the point is that they are creating the system that produces welfare recipients, by depending on provably counterproductive moral principles such as abstinence and unlimited procreation in wedlock, regardless of income.
And I think the point is that providing incentives for producing children out of wedlock (which is provably harmful to the children) and discouraging the involvement of the father is resulting in a lot of lost potential. Two parent homes are demonstrably better at raising well-adjusted productive people, and providing incentives for creating an abundance of fatherless children and single-parent households is devastating to communities, and is a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Let's frame this in context. This is arguing over a 2 cent line item on a $300 bill.
20 cents on a 300 dollar bill, or 2 cents on a 30 dollar bill.
I was poor in university. Real poor.
Rice and potatoes in bulk purchased at opportune are almost free. Potatoes are mostly nutritionally complete with the skins, and high calorie, particularly fried or roasted in oil.
Oil is also very cheap purchased in bulk at lower grades.
You don't want candy, you want bulk sugar. It's also so cheap it's almost free.
The bulk stuff I could usually get a drive from someone once every month or two to help with. If you can't do that, work on making friends.
Those staples do not go bad nor need refrigeration.
Learned to use spices. Those days are long over but the lessons stayed.
The hardest thing I had to replace was protein. That was difficult to do cheaply, and I didn't carry a lot of muscle either. I remember I knew what bars had cheap wing deals and took advantage.. but that was 20 years ago now.
..don't panic
With the my sister analogy: she chose to break the rules of our agreement so she would be responsible for the consequences it has on her children.
You are punishing her for her actions, and that harms her children. I understand you seem to hate using the word "punish". That doesn't change what it is and what it does.
You aren't punishing people by refusing to help them regardless of how they've gotten themselves into the mess or whether or not they have made reasonable efforts to improve their situation.
Yes. Yes you are.
Learn to love Alaska
Ever wonder why there are subsidies to pay for land not in production? That came about back in the 40's and 50's when there were surpluses of crops and the prices were so low, the small farms could not survive. I say small. A 100 acres might just be enough to make it, but the big farm of over 300 acres or more were the only ones that could have survived and even that is doubtful as it cost more to grow the crops than selling the harvest would yield. The idea behind those subsidies was to keep the farm land available for farming and not have it sold off for housing development. Had they not had supports "back then" food prices would be higher than they are now as there would be shortages. Back then, approximately 40% of families lived on farm. Now it's about 1% or less. Even with supports, the small farms were gobbled up by the larger ones and conglomerates. Even large industries own vast amounts of farm land today. The supports are still needed, but like many of the entitlements the way the are issued and to who needs to be revised. The wide spread use of supports did keep "some" land from development, but led to the development of the huge conglomerates. There are still families farming 600 or a 1000 acres, but they are having a hard time competing with the conglomerates who also control who can sell what and seed has been engineered so it's only good for one season and the resulting harvest will not germinate. OTOH the seed producers require their customers to sign contracts that they will not use second generation seed.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility? And you see no problem with that? It's bad for the father to be listed, and no gain to the mother to have him listed. It's bad for the mother to have him listed, and no gain to the father. The system set up multiple advantages to not listing a father, and few disincentives. And the real person that loses is the child. And you see harming the children as a good thing, so long as you can blame your harm on a parent. That's stupid and hurts society in general.
Learn to love Alaska
You cannot just raise min wage in a capitalistic society and think that will just fix it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Because having 5 kids for welfare nets you anything...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You are correct, however I would believe that most of the poor births are not by choice, unless you consider that they did not have an abortion choice.. In fact a study cited in 2008 showed that 2/3 of the poor's children are unintentional. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html#6
When you cant win, ad hominem.
What financial incentive? Welfare gives you no net benefits when you have kids. Sure they feed you at a marginal level, and help keep a roof over your head, but they dont provide the full costs of the kid...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
and rapidly climbing...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It is not an appeal to emotion..If he had stopped with it is heatless you would be correct, but he expanded it to "it is inefficient, because starving people will do anything to not starve, especially in a country like the USA with ample resources everywhere", which makes it into a situation to stop things like riots.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
So it is the fault of black Democrat politicians?
Actually they shit on the poor directly as well.. Cutting the benefits without have a system in place to raise those people up does not just shit on the system, it shits on the people.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility?
Your alternative is to punish ME, by making me responsible for some kid that I have no responsibility for raising. Worse, I didn't even get any pussy. Why do you hate me to such a level?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Except show me where it incentives.. You have kids out of wedlock you will be stuck poor with no disposable income for the rest of your life... That sure does not sound like incentives to me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
Learn to love Alaska
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
I'd rather educate them about freedom and responsibility, and let them fly. But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh so people are entitled to a welfare check. Where's mine?
Society in general is a giant pyramid scheme, no matter the economy.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
And I think the point is that providing incentives for producing children out of wedlock (which is provably harmful to the children) and discouraging the involvement of the father is resulting in a lot of lost potential.
I think this xkcd is appropriate. The "were they going to have sex anyway" part. Anything and everything is an incentive for people to produce children.
It's not the welfare that creates single parents. It's people themselves.
Let me put this in perspective with something conservatives love to defend: guns. Would taking away or regulating guns help the problem (of crime, of mentally ill people shooting up the schools, whatever it is liberals complain about)? No. Same thing here. Taking welfare away isn't going to make women and men more conservative and respectful of Christian values
Guns don't kill people. People kill people
Welfare doesn't create single moms. People create single moms.
Again it is a matter of responsibility. I've literally never had sex without a condom (not married) and I won't do so. Birth control isn't 100% but every friend I had that got/got someone else pregnant it was "we thought we'd get away with it just this once" and I have several in that situation. There are things you can do besides vaginal intercourse if you can't afford birthcontrol/happen to be caught without any when needed.
Except show me where it incentives.. You have kids out of wedlock you will be stuck poor with no disposable income for the rest of your life... That sure does not sound like incentives to me.
Sure, that's why they can't get anywhere, people like you tell them "you can't make it, you just need the government to support you", they believe it, and are kept down. I know plenty of people that have been in that situation and are doing just fine now. Sure, they struggled, needed help, but they worked to bring themselves out of it. Happens all the time, you're not destined to poverty for the rest of your life, and you need to stop discouraging people with that kind of crap.
And, yes, it provides incentives. If you're 15, hate your family life and your mom's abusive boyfriend, you know what the way out is that everyone tells you about? You have a baby. Then you get your own government apartment, food stamps, and welfare. And the cycle continues. Mostly because of people like you that keep telling people "The system is rigged and you can't make it." Yes they can.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Welfare doesn't create single moms. People create single moms.
But welfare encourages them to stay that way, and discourages the baby-daddies from "doing the right thing". The problem is not so much that they need financial help, it's the total absence of a father (2nd parent) that so drastically lowers the children's odds of making it out of poverty.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
So you'd throw people in prison for speaking, if you don't like their opinion? Wow, that's lots of freedom you propose there.
That, and I don't think they can't make it, and wouldn't tell them that. You are just lying to make your argument sound better. It isn't working.
Learn to love Alaska
I never said anyone was "entitled" to anything. When you start lying, I know you are done. Thanks for playing, is was almost interesting.
Learn to love Alaska
A child still suffers if their parent commits a crime and goes away to jail. What's your point?
In this case? Semantics, mainly.
Bad parents give their children bad childhoods.
Sometimes. Sometimes bad parents go to jail, and their kids end up in the hands of people that will give them the opportunities that they would not have had otherwise. Which directly contradicts your previous statement. Thus, I feel compelled to ask you, what is your point, when you make such potentially contradictory statements?
Not enforcing rationality on those expecting handouts because someone else might suffer is itself not rational
Good thing I never said that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
Translation: I've run out of counter-arguments, both rational and irrational. Please see sig for clarification.
Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, for it is weak.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And yet it makes you feel just as full after drinking it. How come so many people here don't seem to get that drinking soda like it's water makes you fat and gives you diabetes?
So it is punishing them by not giving them a hand out they aren't entitled too? I'm confused. You do understand the difference between actions and inaction right? Well no one is required to act on their behalf to give them something they aren't entitled too. The criteria that decides what they currently get was pulled out of a hat not something handed down on stone tablets. There is no reason why that criteria can't change to include not putting yourself in a worse situation where you need more assistance.
I think maybe you are unclear on what constitutes defense.
I must be tired! I honestly thought, from the title, that this was some silly study about people getting paper cuts from food stamps
It is not exclusively a matter of responsibility. The birth rate is strongly tied to the availability of affordable birth control. Condoms are great and all, glad you're using them, but when you buy them in the drug store they're upwards of $1 each. That's expensive for a disposable piece of single-use rubber.
If you're going to hold people accountable, you first have to give them every opportunity to act responsibly. Like the GP said, in many parts of the country abortions are harder to get than is really reasonable, and it's only very recently with the Affordable Care Act that heath care programs cover birth control.
So some high school dropout with no plans in life gets pregnant AGAIN it is societies fault, my fault, Wal-Marts fault, and the governments fault but yet you idiots don't think it the person who got pregnant was at fault? Keep up that pipe dream and we will talk when we are in worse condition than Greece. People will continue to do things until it becomes a burden on them and the cons outweigh the pros. This applies to everyone equally for everything in life. I hate my job but I'd hate being without a job more so I stay where I am at. I'd love to have a new car but I don't want to pay for it so I don't get one. I'd love to quit smoking but the addiction is too hard to break unless I actually get cancer. Humans will always do what they eventually want even if the view from the outside by strangers seems odd. What they are doing is not the best thing for them but is the better choice for them compared to what they could be doing. A lot more people COULD be a doctor, a lawyer etc but they do not want to spend the time and money getting there, that is a con that does not outweigh the pro for them. These decisions are not always conscience decisions, they maybe subconscious. You can't make people do something they do not want to do, a perpetual government handout is a big pro in many peoples eyes. Weather you want to believe it or not, many people are perfectly content with that. I know many of them personally and have known them my whole life.
You're reading too much into that line. phantomfive saw past that; but a lot of you didn't. Pleaes read the thread between me and phantomfive before knee-jerking on that one line. TIA.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Health is everything. Try seeing how the world works with unhealthy people making decisions, doing their job, etc.
I love how, on the one hand, conservatives will rail on and on about how Obama isn't creating enough jobs, and on the other hand, blame poor people for being poor simply because they refuse to find a job.
To be fair, there's also that not-having-sex-until-marriage part, not to mention promoting fatherhood (as opposed to just being a "baby daddy") but please - feel free to overgeneralize. ;)
Wow - That was fun watching the moderation... especially when the butthurt and brainless among us reached for the "overrated" mod in a hurry.
Let's sum it up for those who were so frightened of what I wrote that they had to try to drive it down, mm'kay?
"The truth is like a lion.
You don't have to defend it.
Let it loose.
It will defend itself."
-St. Augustine
PS: Mod this one down too, kids - prove to us all just how scared you are. ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
A pointless and moralistic stance.
No, it's a very real and very practical stance. If you cannot afford to feed them, then it makes perfect sense to not breed them. If you want to make sure they have at least some chance of success, then be picky about where you stick your dick, and put a ring on her finger beforehand. It also reduces the whole bastardy problem that lies at the majority of welfare cases.
6,000+ years of human history stands as my proof of this. So where's yours?
Sure, but that's beside the point.
Bullshit - it is the point, and a huge part of getting the poor out of the mess they're in. Single mothers have it orders of magnitude harder than a two-parent family. Deny it - I dare you. It's tragic enough that there are single mothers due to widowhood, why compound it by promoting a culture and ideology that treats women as ever-willing fuck-toys, while duping them into thinking they're "empowered" by becoming such things?
Opposition to contraceptives and proper sex education is purely malicious.
Nice strawman: No one is opposed to sex education - it is first and foremost the parents' job, if they're competent. If they're not, at least they can damned sure teach from experience (e.g. "Son, don't be poor like me. Here's part of how you avoid that..."), have the school teach it, and if all else fails there is ready access to books on the subject at the nearest library. ...anything else is patronizing and over-parental. I won't even touch on how ready contraception has gone out of its way to reduce women to mere semi-disposable sperm receptacles.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Funny how these libertarian's look more like Chairman Mao the more you look at the likely consequences of the views they push.
The libertarian dream would be running an unregistered coal mine in China. No taxes and nobody to listen to the complaints of whoever will work for you at whatever price you want to pay and whatever work conditions you see fit.
We are all like that, rich or poor, we just get distracted more when money or work gives us more options.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
OK, Let's play "It takes a village". A group of three poor moms, each with 5 children, get together. Two of them get jobs at Walmart, $160 a week, and pay the third mom $106.66 a week total to babysit. Everyone now has more money, and they're all contributing to the economy. The moms at Walmart get some employment skills, and the one at home dealing with 15 kids probably develops some new skills too. Where is this inferior to three women sitting on their asses, watching Oprah fail at her new business?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
When people are personally responsible, they educate themselves
When people are personally responsible, they have less children
When people are personally responsible, they don't choose whores as an entertainment option
When people are personally responsible, they tend to make above median income
When people are personally responsible, having good sexual education is moot.
Nope, no influence of personal responsibility here.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Opposition to contraceptives and proper sex education is evil, but it to call it malicious is inaccurate. Opposition to contraceptives frequently comes from religious beliefs, and therein lies confusion too deep to unravel here. Opposition to proper sex education is bad, but is complicated by sex education in government schools being the wrong place, and by some sex education programs being perversion education programs (I mean that in the literal sense of self-damaging=perverse).
FWIW, the history of "family planning" is far from clean, Planned Parenthood was started as a "keep the darkies from reproducing" organization.
Moralism is never pointless, morality is a guide to living, and a proper morality is a guide to living well.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Bargain supermarket chains with locations in high crime ghettos find numerous problems beyond the obvious risks of high crime. Inner city expenses are high, and the store has to choose between losing money and coming under political fire for having prices even a little higher in the city store to cover higher costs. The store will be under political pressure to hire politically favored minorities, and nonunion stores will be picketed with the mayor's secret blessing. The percentage of cash customers will be low.
Between the poor profits, the risk of a homicide on the premises, the risk of reputation damage from political attacks, it's just not worth the effort.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But welfare encourages them to stay that way
Right, and guns encourage crime, and discourages criminals from "doing the right thing". Oh, and drugs too. Drugs encourage people to become lazy liberal hippies, discouraging them to get jobs. But the biggest drug is of course alcohol. Bring back Prohibition! And include cigarettes this time!
The problem is not so much that they need financial help, it's the total absence of a father (2nd parent) that so drastically lowers the children's odds of making it out of poverty.
Removing welfare will not bring those fathers back. They're not the Grinch whose heart are going to grow three sizes bigger just because that girl they knocked up won't get paid by the state. Or are you suggesting the state point a gun at men's heads and force them to stay with the mother of their children (assuming the mother isn't lying that it's his, or your gonna have the state force DNA testing using taxpayer money)? Are you not already satisfied with how the legal system grants alimony to women most of the time? That a man can go to jail over the mere words (with minimum/no evidence, because hey if we asked too many questions those poor victims' feelings will be hurt) of a woman accusing him of rape or even just missing a payment on alimony (I'm sure he'll be in a much better position to work and pay back alimony when he's in jail paid for by taxpayers)?
The point I'm making is that your (well, conservatives') obsession with "fixing" the single mom issue (and pretty much anything to do with what people do in their bedrooms) is as silly as the Liberal attempt to "fix" the gun issue. Suggesting that there are systematic incentives for creation of single moms is as silly as a liberal suggesting that the system you have for guns are incentives for violence and crime and crazy people shooting up the schools.
Giving money to the Red Cross is not "helping the poor," it's giving money to the Red Cross (to do with as they please).
Helping the poor means volunteering at a battered women's shelter, or giving a family of 6 somewhere to stay for a couple weeks when their landlord decides to sell the house they were renting, so their kids don't have to be brought to school in their fucking 'house.'
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
True to both. $1 for what they are is a lot (that said if it means you get sex that night it is money well spent :)). Both sides need to be reasonable: you shouldn't just hand out money like people are entitled to it (you do with health insurance and unemployment insurance because it is something they paid for so they ARE entitled to it), and the flip side is you need to allow people the freedom to deal with their problems they any way that is legally allowed to them (including ready access to birth control, sex ed, abortion, adoption services, legal aid to force the fathers to help out etc).
Americans both republicans and democrats want to disown a huge swathe of americans (the poor) and build walls around their own class.
I don't know when people finally will realize that the only way forward is to cull the top 1%, and destroy the government completely, it's rotten to the core and is only self serving to individuals. There's no incentive for people in government to do anything for the people themselves, why there aren't violent coups everywhere in America is insane.
One day the camels' back will break and the rich will pay for the ostracization and exploitation of the majority. Here's to hoping it'll be sooner rather than later.
And the old communists thought the blood on the streets would be mostly of the rich. They were more accurate in this but less accurate in estimating the nature of the survivors. Beware all extremists. Flee from those who offer a simple solution.
Giving money to the Red Cross is not "helping the poor," it's giving money to the Red Cross (to do with as they please).
Ah, so do you then agree that giving government money isn't "helping the poor" either? You'll just be giving government money to do with as they please! I think you're on the same page as many of the conservative republican Christians you despise (you know, the people Curunir_wolf was defending which got you into this subthread). I don't know why you two are fighting each other.
Helping the poor means volunteering at a battered women's shelter, or giving a family of 6 somewhere to stay for a couple weeks when their landlord decides to sell the house they were renting, so their kids don't have to be brought to school in their fucking 'house.'
Hey, originally (the post I replied to) just said "help people". You never specified how.
But if that's the measurement you go by... can you tell us what you personally have done then? Better yet, can you get one of those poor people you're helping right now on the line to tell us more? What with it being winter and all, are you presently offering shelter to some poor people?
See, like I said before, I like to bash Americans as much as the next guy. I think people (not just Americans) in general are dumbmasses. I don't think I'm that smart either, I'm just smart enough to know I, along with most people, are dumb. But that's exactly why I need great principled people like you to lead by example. Please, sir, show us how it's done.
So this , even though it's from an AC, gets score:0, while "libertarians want to murder millions" gets +5.
Sad.Partisan sad, actually.
I would bet large sums of cash that the people you accuse of being unable to afford $1 pieces of rubber are using cell phones that cost three times what mine does monthly.
In the end, this is all cultural. Low income culture has decided that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to have a LOT of children, and walk away. If that wasn't the case, this wouldn't be happening.
When he came home, he and his wife/ family moved next door.
Where the Republitards immediately started making snide comments about his living relationship, because the only thing they want more than "less taxes" is "more government watching your bedroom antics".
No, they did not. Especially since it was his wife and children that moved next door, his sisters lived next door and stayed living together till they died. I loved my great aunts, and they loved each other like sisters, even those who were related 'only' by marriage.
Which is why we should remove the marriage penalty from welfare etc.
I am the author you replied to, presently low income people spend a higher portion of their income on housing, energy and food. We really cannot reduce the amount spent on food if they are prepping their own food, but energy and housing can both be substantially decreased.
Hypothetical:
Family of 3 receives $200 a month in food stamps based on an $800 income. Same family pays $440 a month in rent and $155 a month in power.
Family of 1 receives $15 a month in food stamps based on an income of $1200 a month. Also pays $440 a month in rent and $75 a month in power.
Merge the 2 New family if 4 still receives $2000 in income, but now pays $500 a month in rent and $180 a month in power. That is a net improvement of $(440*2+155+75)-(500+180)=(1110-680)=$430 a month that is more than the food stamp income
Truth: the numbers above are not hypothetical. One is my situation, the other is an unrelated neighbors.
Further truth: Before I stick any part of me into someone else, they should be comfortable enough with me to share their income numbers.
Which way do you want it? I propose re-establishing the nuclear family, you object then go off ranting about how the nuclear family was/is destroyed. Higher wages w/o inflation(nigh impossible) or lower cost of living just on a cash basis the 2nd works, the first... not so much so.
If the street walkers in my neighborhood actually get paid what they claim, sucking dick pays a lot more than Wal-Mart, regardless of how you look.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
One adult, 15 kids? That's not gonna work. The issue here isn't what's best for the economy, that would pretty clearly be the mom working, it's what's best for the mom and her family. With five kids it is very hard to make the numbers work with no adults at home.
Now if you've got a more normal family situation then this (various forms of "taking a village") is precisely what people end up doing, and they do end up being slightly more productive then they would otherwise. But even with just one kid, $160 a week childcare is only affordable if the childcare is grandma.
If you add in gas (AFAIK I am the only person in the entire state of Ohio who prefers working and taking the bus to having a job that doesn't pay enough for a car), extra food expenses (mom can't be home to make the cheap $0.50 cent meal three times a day if she's got work), etc. the job is break-even at best. Since she probably lives in a low-income area, it probably has to have high tax rates to fund basic functions of government (my hometown of Detroit, for example, does not get enough tax revenue to function, yet it's tax rates are near the statutory maximums; this makes sense when you realize that the per capita income is a third of the regions, yet it is not 2/3 cheaper to hire a cop on the Detroit side of the border), that knocks her down a lot. Given that she could reduce her food stamps/Section 8/etc. as well it could be money-losing.
Where she'd actually make money is the Earned Income Credit. $8,000-$8,500 gets you almost $3k tax-free if you have a kid. Note that this is actually a reason for her City Councilman to try and stop her from getting the job, because he can't get the City's hands on the $30-$90 it would have gotten if it was taxable.
The other advantage is that she could (in theory) get promoted to a job that isn't break-even.
The fact the the stamps come from tax money means EVERY tax payer has paid for the right to have an opinion about it.
No it means every *person* has a right to have an opinion about it. Being a victim of unemployment doesn't negate your right to have a say in democracy and government, otherwise the rich could (and did) reduce the number of people entitled to be part of the work force and confiscate the right to be self-governed from those people. Slaves could not vote, or stand up to speak a political opinion, and neither could people without land holdings, and neither could women. These people who were marginalised by rich, white landowners fought hard to get these rights, and you are advocating that they give up these rights because you feel entitled.
You also ignore the fact that for the vast majority of people who are not taxpayers, that it is not through their choice, but because of structural violence engineered by rich men and women to disempower and disenfranchise them. The whole structure of modern society, particularly the focus on educational labels is designed to deny able people from empowered jobs which in most cases any able person could learn. In my parents generation, employers would hire people at the entry level, and provide training and education, expecting people to advance their careers and develop their skills. Today that burden has been fully leveled on the (un)employed, and often it is a gamble whether any given training will pay off in even marginal employment at the completion of it. Education has turned from the development of skills, to an arbitrary classifier for class warfare.
How the hell is promoting fatherhood "beside the point"? Children who live in single-mother families are more than 4 times as likely to be in poverty than children who live in married-couple families. (Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/PovertyAndIncomeEst/ib.shtml) The explanation is obvious: A two-parent household has two incomes. (Or, if it has only one income, it benefits by not needing expenses like daycare.)
The libertine "babby daddy" system too common today is very much a contributor to poverty.
Has anyone stopped to consider how alarming a trend is being pursued here ? For too many people, the Govt. is no longer regarded as deriving it's authority from the consent of the governed as Lincoln reminded us. The poor have never had their voice, yet those of us who care about those depressed economicly have always spoken effectively for them. If our voice is falling on deaf ears its because the Govt has being reduced to a subservient role as it's being dominated by Corporate Banksters. Question: Have any of you had experiences with irresponsible teenagers whom you as parents have entrusted a credit card to only to have them abuse balancing their accounts ? It's not my intention to embarrass or humiliate any present member of Congress, rather to point out they've been subjugated to the subservient role of teens by an UnConstitutional central bank playing their " responsible " parent. And to denounce the rotten to the core corrupt system we as Americans have been saddled with since the UnConstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Under the Jeffersonian Democratic principles, We the People, Constitutionaly, have the sole power to create money, through our Treasury, an office held in sacred trust for US, including our poor, downtrodden. Human beings create money to serve the essential needs for food, shelter, medical care, retirement so that we can all live in a lawful, orderly civilized country. HUMANS create it, not some central Banksters. Real money is created through our toil and service to provide essential goods & services to support other humans. To be REAL money at all, it has to have value before it can serve as a medium of exchange. Things have value as money only if (1) they're intrisicly valuable in serving HUMAN life, and (2) they're finite & limited as time & our work product is. Humans have always used semi/precious metals as coins to represent money because they have intrinsicly valuable industrial uses and have always been recyclable, with cheaper, harder alloys preserving their durability. We the People are the beginning, middle and end for what REAL money is all about. Before the inception of the Rothschild's Fed hijacked our Govt as " financial terrorists " , we experienced a stable monentary system from 1792 thru 1932 as the Constitutional legal standard for American money endured intact. Since this foreign owned international banking cartel entered our country as a Trojan Horse to convert us from our Soverign nation to their multi lateral Corporation, our lawful monentary system has been converted into their debt based Ponzi Scheme monentary system, as their credit system of low reserve infinite unbacked fiat script is based on daisy chains. Americans now struggle with debt slavery daily to avoid loosing everything they've worked for their entire lives. That's the legacy of loss of our Soverignty. To understand how their corrupt Ponzi Scheme debt based monetary system wrecked the very economy it was purported to assist, you have to know how they work. While the U.S. issued debt free U.S. Silver Certificates, our country took 120 years to amass an aggregate national debt of mere Billions of real $ and the value of our money was viable, predictable. After 1964 when our Treasury was hijacked and unbacked Corporate Monopoly parlor game script called Federal Reserve Notes was substituted, an out of control phony national debt was created. The Congress of 1913 & Woodrow Wilson were duped into unlawfuly authorizing a fiat system where Banksters, not citizens, were allowed to create $. In 1913, the U.S. sold the rights to a foreign owned Corporation to substitute their foreign name for ours on our currency. Rights they couldn't own and could never legaly have to sell were sold anyway for Bribes. The interloping Banksters now compell the Treasury to issue debentures of indebtedness, and sell them, before they'll print their phony debt based counterfeit currency which your taxes pay the Mints to coin real money to redeem. The French have a word for that: Embezzelier. Meaning to de