Georgia has discovered the cure for poverty!

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Republicans have just about ruined Georgia's agriculture.

Crops Rot While Trump-Led Immigration Backlash Idles Farm Work

The death of meaningful U.S. immigration reform, done in by Washington partisanship and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on foreigners, is leaving crops withering in the field and the farm lobby with nowhere to turn as a labor shortage intensifies.

If Trump Builds the Wall, What Will Happen to our Food System? - Modern Farmer

According to the Farm Bureau report, “closing the border” (i.e. building a wall) would greatly exacerbate existing farm labor shortages found in many parts of the country, resulting in crops left to rot in the fields and a vast reduction in agricultural productivity—which could put some farmers out of business.

“Many migrants who begin their careers as farm laborers move onto other sectors of the economy [with] less demanding positions after several years,” the authors noted. “This progression leads to farmers often being the first to bare the negative economic impacts of decreased border crossings and migrant labor shortages.”

-----------------------------

As always, Republicans take a country that if finally starting to the recover from the last GOP administration and drag it back down. They can't help themselves. That's just who they are.

Let's see now. Farmers get cheap labor though legal and illegal workers. If not for them, farmers would have to pay help more money to attract American workers. Gee, I wonder why they would use such a scare tactic as crops will rot in the fields because of the wall??? I just can't figure it out!

 

[Flopper]

Poor houses.

Miserable shelters...

Definitely provided an incentive to take care of yourself and your own.

Exactly. What's the incentive to getting out of poverty when the government gives you a home in the suburbs, enough food to keep you fat as an ox, a free cell phone, and free medical care? What's the point of going out and getting a job to support yourself?

I really don't think being fat as an ox is much of an incentive to pass up a job to sit on your ass and watch daytime TV. A telephone is essential today to finding jobs and a cell phone can be the cheapest and most effective option. Employers today don't sent you letters asking you to schedule an interview. They call and if you don't return the call within 12 or 24 hours, they call someone else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clearly, Republicans are more likely to love communists than anyone else. They love Putin.

So tell us, who did the US Communist Party support the last three Presidential elections?

Marx, Lenin, and Stalin!

No, but very close.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Poor houses.

Miserable shelters...

Definitely provided an incentive to take care of yourself and your own.

Exactly. What's the incentive to getting out of poverty when the government gives you a home in the suburbs, enough food to keep you fat as an ox, a free cell phone, and free medical care? What's the point of going out and getting a job to support yourself?

I really don't think being fat as ox is much of an incentive to pass up a job to sit on your ass and watch daytime TV. A telephone is essential today to finding jobs and a cell phone can be the cheapest and most effective option. Employers today don't sent you letters asking you to schedule an interview. They call and if you don't return the call within 12 or 24 hours, they call someone else.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's what they are doing with their phones---waiting for job interviews.

Years ago I was unemployed several times in my life. I don't recall ever needing 250 minutes a month to receive job interview calls.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong! If wealth were distributed fairly, there would be hundreds of millions more investors and millions more jobs.

Imagine a world where everyone was moderately wealthy, not just a few enormously wealthy.

That was what was happening in America back in the 1950s, 1960s & 1970s. Then Reagan started the whole supply side crap and the country has gone to shit since then.

By distributed you mean the government stealing money and giving it to others?

Tell me, if a person is not allowed to keep most of the money they make, what would be the point of making money in the first place?

So the lottery in your state is up to 50 million dollars. Tickets cost two dollars a piece. The catch is if you win the 50 million dollars, you must give 49.5 away to other people in your state. Now how many lottery tickets would YOU buy with your own money?

 

[danielpalos]

End our War on Drugs to pay for welfare!

give the money back to the people that have been paying for it

why repeat historical mistakes. 1929 already happened.

it's never a mistake to let working people keep more of their own money

but you wouldn't know anything about working

Capitalism died in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism, ever since.

and you still don't know anything about working for a living

i know about work and i know about living.

 

[danielpalos]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Republicans have just about ruined Georgia's agriculture.

Crops Rot While Trump-Led Immigration Backlash Idles Farm Work

The death of meaningful U.S. immigration reform, done in by Washington partisanship and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on foreigners, is leaving crops withering in the field and the farm lobby with nowhere to turn as a labor shortage intensifies.

If Trump Builds the Wall, What Will Happen to our Food System? - Modern Farmer

According to the Farm Bureau report, “closing the border” (i.e. building a wall) would greatly exacerbate existing farm labor shortages found in many parts of the country, resulting in crops left to rot in the fields and a vast reduction in agricultural productivity—which could put some farmers out of business.

“Many migrants who begin their careers as farm laborers move onto other sectors of the economy [with] less demanding positions after several years,” the authors noted. “This progression leads to farmers often being the first to bare the negative economic impacts of decreased border crossings and migrant labor shortages.”

-----------------------------

As always, Republicans take a country that if finally starting to the recover from the last GOP administration and drag it back down. They can't help themselves. That's just who they are.

You link to Bloomberg for economic analysis?!? The annual "crops-rotting-in-the-fields" bogeyman is pure bullshit. It's a scare tactic that relies on the economic absurdity that there exist such things as "labor shortages". Claiming there is a labor shortage in America is the same thing as saying there aren't enough Americans. It is self-evidently false and you shouldn't buy it.

Almost Six Million Unfilled Job Openings In America - Question Is Why?

 

[WEATHER53]

Reap what you sow and if you sow nothing you get nothing

 

[cnelsen]

End our War on Drugs to pay for welfare!

End our war on drugs (on some drug users) and give the savings back to the people who earned it.

 

[cnelsen]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Republicans have just about ruined Georgia's agriculture.

Crops Rot While Trump-Led Immigration Backlash Idles Farm Work

The death of meaningful U.S. immigration reform, done in by Washington partisanship and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on foreigners, is leaving crops withering in the field and the farm lobby with nowhere to turn as a labor shortage intensifies.

If Trump Builds the Wall, What Will Happen to our Food System? - Modern Farmer

According to the Farm Bureau report, “closing the border” (i.e. building a wall) would greatly exacerbate existing farm labor shortages found in many parts of the country, resulting in crops left to rot in the fields and a vast reduction in agricultural productivity—which could put some farmers out of business.

“Many migrants who begin their careers as farm laborers move onto other sectors of the economy [with] less demanding positions after several years,” the authors noted. “This progression leads to farmers often being the first to bare the negative economic impacts of decreased border crossings and migrant labor shortages.”

-----------------------------

As always, Republicans take a country that if finally starting to the recover from the last GOP administration and drag it back down. They can't help themselves. That's just who they are.

You link to Bloomberg for economic analysis?!? The annual "crops-rotting-in-the-fields" bogeyman is pure bullshit. It's a scare tactic that relies on the economic absurdity that there exist such things as "labor shortages". Claiming there is a labor shortage in America is the same thing as saying there aren't enough Americans. It is self-evidently false and you shouldn't buy it.

Almost Six Million Unfilled Job Openings In America - Question Is Why?

LOL, 6 mil unfilled job openings? Doesn't mean we have a labor shortage. We have a job overage. We need 6 million robots. Actually, I'm kidding. There's a very simple reason there are "six million unfilled job openings" in the US. Let's see if you can guess what it is:

Mr. Tightwadi owns a burger and kebab joint called Cheap Eats in Skinflint, Michigan. His dishwasher gets deported so he puts a sign in the window that says "DISHWASHER NEEDED. $2 / hour". All day he sits in his office with a stack of blank application forms in front of him ready to interview. But no one comes in for the job. Every fifteen minutes or so, he sticks his head into the kitchen and notes with alarm the growing stack of dirty dishes in the sink. As the day wears on and no one applies for the job, he begins to wonder whether he might have to close the restaurant! Finally, his nerves are shot so he goes into the restroom and locks himself in a stall and begins wailing: why, oh why, will no one wash my dirty dishes?

In the very next stall, as luck would have it, there is a writer for The Economist taking a shit. He has been to a famous college and gotten an expensive and prestigious degree and does economic analysis for a living. He is an expert, in other words, and decides to help poor Mr Tightwadi. I couldn't help but overhear, said the expert, and he farted loudly, but I saw your sign advertising for a dishwasher out front. I think I know what your problem is, he said, groaning with the strain of passing an enormous turd.

Really? said Mr Tighwadi hopefully. Did I use the wrong font on my sign?

I'm not sure, grunted the economist, fonts aren't my area of expertise. But what you have to understand is--and Mr Tightwadi heard a big splash in the next stall--washing dishes is a job Americans don't want to do. And he said it with such confidence Mr Tightwadi was sure he was right.

He was filled with despair. So how will my dishes get clean? he cried.

Well, the writer for the famous and influential magazine asked, can you think of anyone who wants to do dishes?

No! wailed the restaurateur.

Not even in your home country? he asked sly with a long mellifluous fart.

No! They hate washing dishes, too!

Even in America? For two whole dollars per hour?

Well... said Mr. Tightwadi. They might want to wash dishes then. At least their children could have a chance at an education...

You see? the economist exclaimed triumphantly.

But they aren't in America.

Who's the richest person in America? asked the well-educated writer.

Bill Gates, replied Mr. Tightwadi.

And if he's the richest businessman, he must be the best businessman, right?

Yes.

And how does he fill job openings when there aren't enough qualified Americans?

I don't know?

He calls his Congressman and reports a severe shortage of tech workers. Then he makes a large contribution to the Congressman's reelection campaign to prove how severe the shortage is.

Wow, said Mr Tightwadi. That's brilliant. A good education really does pay off. Thank you.

No problem, said the economist. And the best part is, the yokels around here whose wages you will be undercutting are on the hook for the cost of educating your dishwasher's children!

Dayummm, said Mr. Tightwadi respectfully.

Yep, all it takes to succeed in America, um, hey did you know you are out of toilet paper over here?

Oh, said Mr. Tightwadi, my janitor is so lazy. Local... hey... do you think--

Yes, said the writer for The Economist.

 

[Flopper]

People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,

• Biological Urges
• Desire to pass on family name, lineage, history
• Seeking life fulfillment through children
• Societal pressure to start a family
• Feeling that children is the next step in their relationship
• Hope that children will help provide for them now or at the end of life
• Status conferred by fatherhood and motherhood
• Trying to fix/grow a relationship with a significant other
• And of course, simply an accident

Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.

Liberals see the root cause of poverty is the upbringing of children, relationship with parents, qualify of education, guidance and role modeling. For liberals one of the main purposes of social welfare is two improve the environment for children in poverty. In the past taking food off the table and having Mom working instead taking care of the kids has not produce responsible productive adults and it is not likely to in the future.

So what you are saying is that we taxpayers are in a hostage situation. How pathetic.

All the reasons you listed for having children are personal choices--not unavoidable ones. So let's go through your list:

Don't you think that working people have biological urges? Of course we do, but we control those urges because of our income.

Don't you think that working people seek fulfillment through children? Of course we do, but again, if the income isn't there, we do without that fulfillment.

Don't you think that working people face the same societal pressures? Of course we do, but we choose responsibility instead.

Don't you think that working people feel that children are the next step in a relationship? Of course many do, but if you can't afford that next step, you stay at the step you are at.

Don't you think that some working people may consider children for future support? Of course we do, but instead, we take that money we would have otherwise used to bring up children and start an IRA account.

There are differences between needs and wants. Stealing taxpayer money for wants is selfish. Nobody needs to have kids. I never had any, and many other responsible people never had kids either. Even Rush Limbaugh, with all his millions, stated he never had children because he was afraid it would interfere with his success.

If working people can do without these desires, so can the non-working. Demanding taxpayer funded desires is inexcusable.

Expecting people with low income to deviate from normal behavior in regard to having kids, is just a bit unrealistic. Maybe they should, but it's not gonna happen because having a family tends be a lot more important to the poor than the rich. Unlike those with money, fine homes, and great jobs, family is all they have.

I can understand why conservatives such as yourself would feel how unfair the situation is. However, unrealistic solutions will not solve the problem. Taking away food, shelter, and healthcare from people that can't earn enough money, who aren't able to work, or can't find work, in order to punish the few that refuse to work will just create even more serious social problems. I agree we need solutions but we need realist solutions that won't create even worse problems.

 

[Flopper]

We should create similar requirements for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parents utilizing public schools, for example, should be required to do a certain number of hours of public service each year. Truckers who use the highways, Social Security recipients who have drawn for too many years. Basically all the 'takers'.

Are those ideas practical?
And what do you do with millions of parents that don't volunteer at public school? Kick their kids out school or maybe breakup the family and let the government raise them, a guaranteed disaster. And for the old that outlive their social security contributions, we just let them die or maybe execute them.

 

[dblack]

We should create similar requirements for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parents utilizing public schools, for example, should be required to do a certain number of hours of public service each year. Truckers who use the highways, Social Security recipients who have drawn for too many years. Basically all the 'takers'.

Are those ideas practical?

Of course not. I'm applying the logic of the 'shame-the-poor' conservatives to government in general.

 

[Flopper]

.

Surely, you don't eat this shit everyday.

Yes, we do eat "this shit" every day.

You know why? Because we fucking work for a living, we don't depend on foodstamps, and because we work, we go for cheap, easy meals. Limited variety, limited quantity.

That's what working people have to do.

SNAP recipients don't have to worry about that shit. Money is not object when it comes to food for them.[/QUOTE]

You don't get a fortune if you get food stamps. For a family of 4, you get $5 a day maximum. Why don't you get off of your high horse you arrogant ass. I do believe that we should help people who need help.[/QUOTE]
Eating healthy is no more expense than eating crap. You just have to prepare it yourself and know how to shop for nutrition and value. SNAP benefits depend on your income and state. The minimum SNAP benefit is $16 a month. The maximum benefit for 4 people is $629/mo or $5.40 per person per day.

 

[koshergrl]

.

Surely, you don't eat this shit everyday.

Yes, we do eat "this shit" every day.

You know why? Because we fucking work for a living, we don't depend on foodstamps, and because we work, we go for cheap, easy meals. Limited variety, limited quantity.

That's what working people have to do.

SNAP recipients don't have to worry about that shit. Money is not object when it comes to food for them.

You don't get a fortune if you get food stamps. For a family of 4, you get $5 a day maximum. Why don't you get off of your high horse you arrogant ass. I do believe that we should help people who need help.[/QUOTE]
Eating healthy is no more expense than eating crap. You just have to prepare it yourself and know how to shop for nutrition and value. SNAP benefits depend on your income and state. The minimum SNAP benefit is $16 a month. The maximum benefit for 4 people is $629/mo or $5.40 per person per day. [/QUOTE]
I know how to cook and shop thank you. I know how much things cost. If i choose to eat fucking salami that's my choice. And I can feed four ppl on 22 bucks a day...nit that it matters.so fuck off. My point is sometimes I choose not to spend hours on food prep for the week in an obsessive quest to eliminate all prepared foods from our diets. See I have two days a week where I dont work at a job. I budget my time, and my money, in a way that suits me.Not you.

 

[koshergrl]

in fact, today I fed my family of three on...let me think....six or seven bucks.

 

[cnelsen]

People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,

• Biological Urges
• Desire to pass on family name, lineage, history
• Seeking life fulfillment through children
• Societal pressure to start a family
• Feeling that children is the next step in their relationship
• Hope that children will help provide for them now or at the end of life
• Status conferred by fatherhood and motherhood
• Trying to fix/grow a relationship with a significant other
• And of course, simply an accident

Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.

Liberals see the root cause of poverty is the upbringing of children, relationship with parents, qualify of education, guidance and role modeling. For liberals one of the main purposes of social welfare is two improve the environment for children in poverty. In the past taking food off the table and having Mom working instead taking care of the kids has not produce responsible productive adults and it is not likely to in the future.

So what you are saying is that we taxpayers are in a hostage situation. How pathetic.

All the reasons you listed for having children are personal choices--not unavoidable ones. So let's go through your list:

Don't you think that working people have biological urges? Of course we do, but we control those urges because of our income.

Don't you think that working people seek fulfillment through children? Of course we do, but again, if the income isn't there, we do without that fulfillment.

Don't you think that working people face the same societal pressures? Of course we do, but we choose responsibility instead.

Don't you think that working people feel that children are the next step in a relationship? Of course many do, but if you can't afford that next step, you stay at the step you are at.

Don't you think that some working people may consider children for future support? Of course we do, but instead, we take that money we would have otherwise used to bring up children and start an IRA account.

There are differences between needs and wants. Stealing taxpayer money for wants is selfish. Nobody needs to have kids. I never had any, and many other responsible people never had kids either. Even Rush Limbaugh, with all his millions, stated he never had children because he was afraid it would interfere with his success.

If working people can do without these desires, so can the non-working. Demanding taxpayer funded desires is inexcusable.

Expecting people with low income to deviate from normal behavior in regard to having kids, is just a bit unrealistic. Maybe they should, but it's not gonna happen because having a family tends be a lot more important to the poor than the rich. Unlike those with money, fine homes, and great jobs, family is all they have.

I can understand why conservatives such as yourself would feel how unfair the situation is. However, unrealistic solutions will not solve the problem. Taking away food, shelter, and healthcare from people that can't earn enough money, who aren't able to work, or can't find work, in order to punish the few that refuse to work will just create even more serious social problems. I agree we need solutions but we need realist solutions that won't create even worse problems.

For every lovely on the dole,
Mandatory birth control.

You want kids? Get a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,

• Biological Urges
• Desire to pass on family name, lineage, history
• Seeking life fulfillment through children
• Societal pressure to start a family
• Feeling that children is the next step in their relationship
• Hope that children will help provide for them now or at the end of life
• Status conferred by fatherhood and motherhood
• Trying to fix/grow a relationship with a significant other
• And of course, simply an accident

Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.

Liberals see the root cause of poverty is the upbringing of children, relationship with parents, qualify of education, guidance and role modeling. For liberals one of the main purposes of social welfare is two improve the environment for children in poverty. In the past taking food off the table and having Mom working instead taking care of the kids has not produce responsible productive adults and it is not likely to in the future.

So what you are saying is that we taxpayers are in a hostage situation. How pathetic.

All the reasons you listed for having children are personal choices--not unavoidable ones. So let's go through your list:

Don't you think that working people have biological urges? Of course we do, but we control those urges because of our income.

Don't you think that working people seek fulfillment through children? Of course we do, but again, if the income isn't there, we do without that fulfillment.

Don't you think that working people face the same societal pressures? Of course we do, but we choose responsibility instead.

Don't you think that working people feel that children are the next step in a relationship? Of course many do, but if you can't afford that next step, you stay at the step you are at.

Don't you think that some working people may consider children for future support? Of course we do, but instead, we take that money we would have otherwise used to bring up children and start an IRA account.

There are differences between needs and wants. Stealing taxpayer money for wants is selfish. Nobody needs to have kids. I never had any, and many other responsible people never had kids either. Even Rush Limbaugh, with all his millions, stated he never had children because he was afraid it would interfere with his success.

If working people can do without these desires, so can the non-working. Demanding taxpayer funded desires is inexcusable.

Expecting people with low income to deviate from normal behavior in regard to having kids, is just a bit unrealistic. Maybe they should, but it's not gonna happen because having a family tends be a lot more important to the poor than the rich. Unlike those with money, fine homes, and great jobs, family is all they have.

I can understand why conservatives such as yourself would feel how unfair the situation is. However, unrealistic solutions will not solve the problem. Taking away food, shelter, and healthcare from people that can't earn enough money, who aren't able to work, or can't find work, in order to punish the few that refuse to work will just create even more serious social problems. I agree we need solutions but we need realist solutions that won't create even worse problems.

Expecting people with low income to deviate from normal behavior in regard to having kids, is just a bit unrealistic. Maybe they should, but it's not gonna happen

And do you know why it's not going to happen? Because taxpayers relieve them of that responsibility.

Responsibility is the key word here. Working folks like myself have to exercise responsibility, so we limit our family size, our spending, our food consumption, everything. But if you tell people there is no need to exercise responsibility, because we will shift your responsibility to people you don't know, of course they will be more irresponsible.

I can understand why conservatives such as yourself would feel how unfair the situation is. However, unrealistic solutions will not solve the problem.

There is nothing unrealistic about it. If Trump and the Republicans passed laws that stated the parent is solely responsible for the upbringing of their children, less poor children will be born. Even dumb as fuck people will take precautions to avoid having children they can't afford. But when we reward people to have children they can't afford, of course they will have as many as they like--unlike working people who financially can't.

 

[cnelsen]

But when we reward people to have children they can't afford, of course they will have as many as they like--unlike working people who financially can't.

There are those who see that as a feature, not a bug.

 

[Flopper]

Poor houses.

Miserable shelters...

Definitely provided an incentive to take care of yourself and your own.

Exactly. What's the incentive to getting out of poverty when the government gives you a home in the suburbs, enough food to keep you fat as an ox, a free cell phone, and free medical care? What's the point of going out and getting a job to support yourself?

I really don't think being fat as ox is much of an incentive to pass up a job to sit on your ass and watch daytime TV. A telephone is essential today to finding jobs and a cell phone can be the cheapest and most effective option. Employers today don't sent you letters asking you to schedule an interview. They call and if you don't return the call within 12 or 24 hours, they call someone else.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's what they are doing with their phones---waiting for job interviews.

Years ago I was unemployed several times in my life. I don't recall ever needing 250 minutes a month to receive job interview calls.

Well, this is not years ago.

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.