You are assuming that someone didn't have an adequate income when they had the child. A family could have been making a reasonable income with both parents working at GM, for instance. Now both parents are out of a job and their unemployment benefits will likely run out before new industries can replace their jobs. Divorce, job loss, illness, etc. can all cause a family that was once fine to flounder.
That's not the question. He said what if someone already had little or no income.
Then it means the parents are dumb and irresponsible. These are the people that will make the "Idiocracy" situation happen. Sigh.
Yeah, because no great thinkers, leaders, inventors, etc. ever came from poor families.
Of course that is not what I meant at all. I believe its wrong to punish kids for their parent's mistakes. That is just why a food program like this would be beneficial. I think the original point of this thread is to basically say that "bitch lady is mean for trying to take free food away from poor kids."
Using the word "dumb" as a placeholder for irresponsible/ignorant/etc., I do not think kids born from dumb families will be dumb themselves, initially. If their parents teach them to be dumb like them, then they will probably turn out that way, too. This is psychology 101. However I stand beside my statement that parents are irresponsible to have kids if they can't afford them, whether it was on purpose or an accident. Personally, I am not super poor, but I am the typical college student with tons of debt. I do not want to have a baby at this age, pretty much because of that reason. Sure, my parents would disown me, I would have to be super responsible and mature, no man would date me again, etc. etc. But it is the money thing that really gets to me. If I have a kid one day, I will first have the money needed to support it properly. And if the world turns upside down and I do have a kid before then, adoption would probably be my first option. (Although I know motherhood changes your thoughts about these things, and adoption would be really hard, which is another reason to stay away)
You are assuming that someone didn't have an adequate income when they had the child.
Yes, I am. In this specific case, what should we as a society do? Does a person have the right to knowingly and willfully create a burden for society for which they have no ability to provide? I'm not talking about people who are brought low by circumstance or tragedy. I am specifically targeting people who choose to have a child for which they cannot provide.
Society should help the family and the child. I think I made that clear before. Regardless, I think social programs should help the parents take care of the child providing educational programs for both child and adult, food stamp and welfare programs, etc. Obviously this is a bad situation, but society should work not only to help prevent this situation by providing access to birth control methods, education, etc., but also support the children to the best of its ability when children are born into dire circumstances. Again, I point out that this is not particularly relevant to the program that initiated this thread.
I favor the recent changes to the welfare system. If people want to receive welfare, they must attend school, get job training, etc. If you don't follow a plan to get you off of welfare, then no welfare for you! There have been a lot of changes to the welfare system, but it's like turning the Titanic. It takes time. We can thank Bill Clinton for starting many, if not most, of these changes. The old system of receiving a dollar with no consequences was absurd. With welfare, there should be strings attached.
In the old days, before welfare, there was a thing called a "poor farm." People had to work to get assistance. With welfare, we abandoned that policy. It's nice to see the system returning to its roots, albeit in small steps.
I don't remember the days of the "poor farm," but I suspect that HungryJoe can tell us about them.
I favor the recent changes to the welfare system. If people want to receive welfare, they must attend school, get job training, etc. If you don't follow a plan to get youoffof welfare, then no welfare for you! There have been a lot of changes to the welfare system, but it's like turning the Titanic. It takes time. We can thank Bill Clinton for starting many, if not most, of these changes. The old system of receiving a dollar with no consequences was absurd.
While I agree with the base point you are making, calling education and job training a consequence is silly. These services are also gifts to these families, and I would bet that most families receiving welfare want to be self-sufficient and welcome the tools that help them get on their feet.
While I agree with the base point you are making, calling education and job training a consequence is silly. These services are also gifts to these families, and I would bet that most families receiving welfare want to be self-sufficient and welcome the tools that help them get on their feet.
Call it whatever you want. My point was that these programs are a vital component to the welfare system.
I, however, am not so sure that most families receiving welfare would prefer to be self sufficient. I suspect that a lot of families, if given welfare with no strings attached, would be quite happy staying on welfare.
You are making a crucial mistake. You are analyzing the problem from your perspective. I've read enough about this topic to know that the values of the poor are most certainly not the same as for the middle and upper classes. If you were raised in a home where your family received welfare, there is no stigma to receiving welfare yourself. There's actually been a lot of research in this field, and it's quite fascinating. It explains a lot of things that appear irrational to people of higher incomes. It doesn't excuse, but it does explain. You really should read what this author has written. This is why breaking the poverty cycle takes more than one generation.
Mrs. MacRoss, I realize that there are people who can't afford food, but the parents have to feed their kids something, or they will starve. If they can't pay bills, rent, etc, then they are pretty much screwed, and a meal once a day might help take the edge off, but it is not going to provide the nutrition a kid needs. There are other things a family can do to lower bills. A lot of those options suck and/or hurt people's pride, but they are better than starving to death. They might not live well, but they will live. If it is a question of buying junk or buying healthy food, they can buy real food for the same price they can buy junk. It is all a matter of knowing what to buy and how to use it. If they cannot afford either type of food, then that is an entirely separate problem. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't provide meals to starving children who have no food at all, but if the issue is the nutritional value of the meal and not the ability to obtain a meal, then it is not a money issue; it is a laziness/ignorance issue.
I favor the recent changes to the welfare system. If people want to receive welfare, they must attend school, get job training, etc. If you don't follow a plan to get youoffof welfare, then no welfare for you! There have been a lot of changes to the welfare system, but it's like turning the Titanic. It takes time. We can thank Bill Clinton for starting many, if not most, of these changes. The old system of receiving a dollar with no consequences was absurd. With welfare, thereshouldbe strings attached.
Regarding welfare in general, I agree that if people want us to give them assistance in the form of welfare, food stamps, meal programs, or whatever, then they need to be willing to do some work too. If it is possible for them to take care of themselves with the money provided by welfare, then they should be willing to learn how to do it. If someone wants to collect welfare but cannot be bothered to learn how to use the money effectively, then I say fuck 'em.
I have always been upfront about my willingness to help those who are willing to help themselves. I have let people live with me and fed them and asked nothing more than that they show they are trying to get and keep a job. However, when they do not try, they get kicked out. I am not a no-strings-attached charity, and I don't think the government should be either. Show us that you are trying and that you are capable of using government assistance wisely until you get back on your feet, and I am willing to keep giving it to you.
A large part of my career drive is focused on what I jokingly call "educating ignorant hippies," but it applies to people who aren't hippies too. I like to help organize and motivate people into helping themselves. Facilitate their education and action, if you will. It's amazing how many people are content to sit around and say, "Yeah...I'll get to that at some point." When they have an external factor motivating them and opening up a pathway for them, they are much more likely to get up and actually do it.
Comments
Using the word "dumb" as a placeholder for irresponsible/ignorant/etc., I do not think kids born from dumb families will be dumb themselves, initially. If their parents teach them to be dumb like them, then they will probably turn out that way, too. This is psychology 101. However I stand beside my statement that parents are irresponsible to have kids if they can't afford them, whether it was on purpose or an accident. Personally, I am not super poor, but I am the typical college student with tons of debt. I do not want to have a baby at this age, pretty much because of that reason. Sure, my parents would disown me, I would have to be super responsible and mature, no man would date me again, etc. etc. But it is the money thing that really gets to me. If I have a kid one day, I will first have the money needed to support it properly. And if the world turns upside down and I do have a kid before then, adoption would probably be my first option. (Although I know motherhood changes your thoughts about these things, and adoption would be really hard, which is another reason to stay away)
Again, I point out that this is not particularly relevant to the program that initiated this thread.
I favor the recent changes to the welfare system. If people want to receive welfare, they must attend school, get job training, etc. If you don't follow a plan to get you off of welfare, then no welfare for you! There have been a lot of changes to the welfare system, but it's like turning the Titanic. It takes time. We can thank Bill Clinton for starting many, if not most, of these changes. The old system of receiving a dollar with no consequences was absurd. With welfare, there should be strings attached.
In the old days, before welfare, there was a thing called a "poor farm." People had to work to get assistance. With welfare, we abandoned that policy. It's nice to see the system returning to its roots, albeit in small steps.
I don't remember the days of the "poor farm," but I suspect that HungryJoe can tell us about them.
I, however, am not so sure that most families receiving welfare would prefer to be self sufficient. I suspect that a lot of families, if given welfare with no strings attached, would be quite happy staying on welfare.
You are making a crucial mistake. You are analyzing the problem from your perspective. I've read enough about this topic to know that the values of the poor are most certainly not the same as for the middle and upper classes. If you were raised in a home where your family received welfare, there is no stigma to receiving welfare yourself. There's actually been a lot of research in this field, and it's quite fascinating. It explains a lot of things that appear irrational to people of higher incomes. It doesn't excuse, but it does explain. You really should read what this author has written. This is why breaking the poverty cycle takes more than one generation.
I have always been upfront about my willingness to help those who are willing to help themselves. I have let people live with me and fed them and asked nothing more than that they show they are trying to get and keep a job. However, when they do not try, they get kicked out. I am not a no-strings-attached charity, and I don't think the government should be either. Show us that you are trying and that you are capable of using government assistance wisely until you get back on your feet, and I am willing to keep giving it to you.
A large part of my career drive is focused on what I jokingly call "educating ignorant hippies," but it applies to people who aren't hippies too. I like to help organize and motivate people into helping themselves. Facilitate their education and action, if you will. It's amazing how many people are content to sit around and say, "Yeah...I'll get to that at some point." When they have an external factor motivating them and opening up a pathway for them, they are much more likely to get up and actually do it.