CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[JimBowie1958]

No starvation?
Lie.
Digital History
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Hoover checked every day and said no one was starving, and in addition, a new business enterprise had been created, selling apples on street corners. As long as we had garbage dumps or garbage cans behind restaurants no one needed to go hungry-- but the aged.

You forgot your /sarcasm tag.

 

[Andylusion]

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.

When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.

Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.

All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.

But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.

Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?

Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.

Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.

Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.

That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.

When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.

So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.

I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.

Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.

That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.

The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.

You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.

Right..... Compare Greece and Germany. Greece had a relatively high minimum wage compared to their GDP, and their minimum wage was indexed to inflation. Germany on the other hand, didn't even have a minimum wage until 2015. Now which did better?

We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

SeaTac, fewer employees per restaurant, higher prices to consumers. Exactly as we predicted.

Seriously, anyone who thinks the Minimum wage doesn't harm jobs, ask yourself.... if the guy who changes your oil had a minimum wage of $100 an hour.... would you hire him to change your oil? Unless you are Donald Trump, chances are.... no.

LMAO, you want to discuss Germany? Okay.

Rid us of the minimum wage in the U.S. That's fine. But, in concert with your German ideals, let's add universal health care, universal college education, some of the highest taxes in Europe, 14 month parental leave at 2/3rds salary (mandatory), govt subsidies to avoid layoffs, months of mandatory vacation, etc. etc. etc.

Sure. Throw in all that, and we can have zero minimum wage. Moron.

What's that got to do with anything?

If you are willing to force the lower and middle class, to pay the massive taxes required to fund those things, and cut your life style down to the Germany level to fund your programs.... then knock yourself out.

I think most Americans would not be willing to accept that.

I'm not sure what you are thinking. Do you think the low-income people in Germany, are living the high life? You realize most of them live a lower standard of living, that the lowest income people in the US, right? After all, not only are they paying a higher income tax, but they also get to pay 20% sale tax on everything they buy. Oh, and by the way, that's not including Social Security tax, Unemployment tax, Nursing tax, and Health Insurance taxes, not including private insurance that people pay for in Germany.... and if that's not enough, how about the fact that over all, Germans earn lower wages than US citizen.

 

[JimBowie1958]

#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."

#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.

110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.

With ideologues, 110 people dying of starvation is a minor statistic if it contradicts their ideology, but of major importance if it supports their ideology.

While far right conservatives may dismiss 110 people starving in one city, liberals dismiss the annual slaughter of about a million unborn babies each year as well.

Pot meet kettle is such a common thing in these discussions.

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans love to blame the poor.

Then they insist women have unwanted children.

Most of those getting food stamps are Republican.

5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills.

And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down.

Is murder ok, if they are unwanted? How the heck are most leftists still alive?

I have no problem with people taking whatever they can get. I have a problem with us being forced to give in the first place. If I qualify for food stamps, you bet I'll take every dollar you are dumb enough to give me.

We want to cut bad school funding, so people have money to pay for good schooling. You want to increase funding for bad schools, that harms and leaves kids with no hope.

Bible studies that bring people down? Teaching people they have value is bad? Teaching them to stay off drugs, obey the law, and work for a living, that brings people down? Pagans........ Bad is good, and good is bad. Up and down, and teaching people how to be successful in life, is horrible. Pagans....... wow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Hoover checked every day and said no one was starving, and in addition, a new business enterprise had been created, selling apples on street corners. As long as we had garbage dumps or garbage cans behind restaurants no one needed to go hungry-- but the aged.

Hmmm.....I find a huge inconsistency here.

You seem concerned about the health of the American public...

...yet unconcerned that the evil Franklin Roosevelt made certain that the Depression, which must have been a burden for that very same American public, lasted over twice as long as every other economic downturn in the nation.


Seem a cognitive disconnect on your part.

And you account for it.......how?

 

[Andylusion]

#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."

#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.

110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.

With ideologues, 110 people dying of starvation is a minor statistic if it contradicts their ideology, but of major importance if it supports their ideology.

While far right conservatives may dismiss 110 people starving in one city, liberals dismiss the annual slaughter of about a million unborn babies each year as well.

Pot meet kettle is such a common thing in these discussions.

LOL Yeah.... because left-wingers sure know a ton about dying of starvation. Left-wingers in Soviet Russia alone, starved out over 7 million people. But 110 people die from someone they claim is a right-winger, and they think they have the moral high ground?

Herbert Hoover wasn't even a right-winger. He was a left-winger. Go look at his policy record. In fact most of the programs FDR pushed, were all originated with Hoover.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Republicans love to blame the poor.

Then they insist women have unwanted children.

Most of those getting food stamps are Republican.

5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills.

And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down.

5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills

Why is that because your beloved university's don't teach CNC programing but lean towards liberal arts? Or is it because the foundation of liberalism is unwedmothers ? No dad needed to teach the basics of how to use a hammer and a vise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."

#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.

110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.

With ideologues, 110 people dying of starvation is a minor statistic if it contradicts their ideology, but of major importance if it supports their ideology.

While far right conservatives may dismiss 110 people starving in one city, liberals dismiss the annual slaughter of about a million unborn babies each year as well.

Pot meet kettle is such a common thing in these discussions.

"With ideologues, 110 people dying of starvation is a minor statistic if it contradicts their ideology, but of major importance if it supports their ideology."

Oh...really???

You're concerned about that 110 persons out of 123 million?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

Less steel framing and smaller size equals more miles per gallon. It also means you’re rolling down the road in a vehicle with much less crashworthiness, making you more vulnerable to every stationary object, to that semi behind you … and to the guy in the normal-sized car.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher.
"Pajamas Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards



I hope you can prove that you are not simply one more hand-wringing Liberal hypocrite by providing all the posts you wrote demanding that the Obama administration drop Cafe Standards that will cost thousands of lives

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh...really???

You're concerned about that 110 persons out of 123 million?

Um, yeah, it may be hard for an ideologue to grasp, but I refuse to reduce the value of any human life, unless it is guilty of heinous crime, to include rape, murder and treason.

 

[Andylusion]

Oh...really???

You're concerned about that 110 persons out of 123 million?

Um, yeah, it may be hard for an ideologue to grasp, but I refuse to reduce the value of any human life, unless it is guilty of heinous crime, to include rape, murder and treason.

.....unless it is guilty of heinous crime, to include rape, murder and treason....

So..... Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy? Or is that a different definition, like the word "is"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh...really???

You're concerned about that 110 persons out of 123 million?

Um, yeah, it may be hard for an ideologue to grasp, but I refuse to reduce the value of any human life, unless it is guilty of heinous crime, to include rape, murder and treason.

You ignored this...and they aren't guilty of anything but a Sunday drive...

Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

Less steel framing and smaller size equals more miles per gallon. It also means you’re rolling down the road in a vehicle with much less crashworthiness, making you more vulnerable to every stationary object, to that semi behind you … and to the guy in the normal-sized car.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher.
"Pajamas Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards



I hope you can prove that you are not simply one more hand-wringing Liberal hypocrite by providing all the posts you wrote demanding that the Obama administration drop Cafe Standards that will cost thousands of lives


Thousands of lives...you seem copacetic with their loss.

 

[WillowTree]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

 

[WillowTree]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

If you don't get married, and you start popping out kids.... I no longer care if you get child support. That is on you for being stupid.

Again, like I said before, your system doesn't work. Go after the fathers all you want. You'll spend more tax money hunting down fathers, than the cost of the food. Growing food? Are you kidding? Like thats going to work. How much money are you going to cough up as a tax payer, to buy land, buy fertilizer, buy pesticides, buy seeds, buy water, and all the things required to grow the food?

And then, you are going to have to feed those men too. And unless you think all deadbeat dads, are master farmers, I wager the production of food they create, will be far less than how much they consume.

Your system does not work. If it did.... I would be for it.

Again, how about we just have women stop being irresponsible, and popping out kids when they are not married, or divorcing? How about we avoid having the problem to begin with.

 

[WillowTree]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

If you don't get married, and you start popping out kids.... I no longer care if you get child support. That is on you for being stupid.

Again, like I said before, your system doesn't work. Go after the fathers all you want. You'll spend more tax money hunting down fathers, than the cost of the food. Growing food? Are you kidding? Like thats going to work. How much money are you going to cough up as a tax payer, to buy land, buy fertilizer, buy pesticides, buy seeds, buy water, and all the things required to grow the food?

And then, you are going to have to feed those men too. And unless you think all deadbeat dads, are master farmers, I wager the production of food they create, will be far less than how much they consume.

Your system does not work. If it did.... I would be for it.

Again, how about we just have women stop being irresponsible, and popping out kids when they are not married, or divorcing? How about we avoid having the problem to begin with.

Then the only recourse is to cut off welfare after three months. No if's and's or but's that will save lots of money since your only interest seems to be in saving money. You get three months that's it.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

If you don't get married, and you start popping out kids.... I no longer care if you get child support. That is on you for being stupid.

Again, like I said before, your system doesn't work. Go after the fathers all you want. You'll spend more tax money hunting down fathers, than the cost of the food. Growing food? Are you kidding? Like thats going to work. How much money are you going to cough up as a tax payer, to buy land, buy fertilizer, buy pesticides, buy seeds, buy water, and all the things required to grow the food?

And then, you are going to have to feed those men too. And unless you think all deadbeat dads, are master farmers, I wager the production of food they create, will be far less than how much they consume.

Your system does not work. If it did.... I would be for it.

Again, how about we just have women stop being irresponsible, and popping out kids when they are not married, or divorcing? How about we avoid having the problem to begin with.

Then the only recourse is to cut off welfare after three months. No if's and's or but's that will save lots of money since your only interest seems to be in saving money. You get three months that's it.

Has almost nothing to do with money.

It has to do with what is best for the mother..... the child... and society.

I don't care how much your child support is. Absolute best thing for the mother, is to not get into that situation to begin with.

I don't care what laws you implement, the absolutely best thing for a child, is not to be in that situation to begin with.

I don't care what programs you make, what funds you spend, what taxes you raise.... the absolute best thing for society is to not have people in this situation to begin with.

Now you are looking at the short term, I get it. In the extreme short term, here's a mother with 5 kids and no job..... let's give her blaw balw blaw blaw balw blaw.

But what is best in the long term? Finland figured this out, by researching education. They discovered that one of the highest predictors of educational success or failure.... wasn't welfare.... wasn't programs.... wasn't education spending... What was it? A father. Fathers raising their children, in a marriage, in a home.

The vast majority of broken families are from unwed girls getting pregnant, and the majority of divorces are initiated by women, for "irreconcilable differences". Which is another way of saying "I'm selfish".

Now again, you want to play the "let's go after deadbeat dads" game.... ok. I'm not opposed to it. Knock yourself out.

But we've been playing that game for the last 50 years. In the immortal words of Dr. Phil "How's that workin for you?"

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

I can assure you that getting divorced isn't the problem. The problems are things that did (or didn't) happen prior to the wedding. For example:

Failing to be sufficiently circumspect prior to wedding is one problem. This may come as a shock to you, but anyone who's gone through the process of becoming a partner in a large firm -- accounting, consulting or law, at least -- is in most, if not all, cases better known and understood -- personality, interests, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, etc. -- by the firm than was the person's spouse on the day they wed, yet one's relationship in a firm is generally thought of -- when the relationship begins -- as more temporary than is the relationship that officially commences with a marriage.

Failing to be flexible as the nature of the relationship and the parties to it change is another problem. The fact of the matter is that one's "core" being doesn't really ever change, at least not according to the very old people with whom I've chatted about how they've changed. What they tell me is that the way(s) one's core beliefs and values are expressed is what changes over time. If one were a bit more validly circumspect in considering the nature of the person to whom one may want to become betrothed, one might notice early that the core of that person isn't a good fit with oneself, even though there's nothing wrong with that person in the abstract.

Failing to know oneself well and failing to know what one wants in a partner are yet other major problems. Everyone wants someone who's kind, thoughtful, responsible, etc. Lots of folks have those qualities. Not so many have them expressed in just the right way for oneself. But one can't know what modes of expression are ideal for oneself until one knows oneself very, very well, core personality strengths and core personality weaknesses. This is a tough thing to figure out for our culture doesn't exactly encourage one to be the "you" one just. Instead, it welcomes the "you" that fits what we (society) consider "normal."
​

Lastly, perhaps your remark has something to do with another member's comments...I don't know. I just want to say that whatever problems exist are not necessarily due to the woman involved. Were that not so, gay male relationships would nearly never need to end, and gay female ones would probably nearly never last.

 

[WillowTree]

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

If you don't get married, and you start popping out kids.... I no longer care if you get child support. That is on you for being stupid.

Again, like I said before, your system doesn't work. Go after the fathers all you want. You'll spend more tax money hunting down fathers, than the cost of the food. Growing food? Are you kidding? Like thats going to work. How much money are you going to cough up as a tax payer, to buy land, buy fertilizer, buy pesticides, buy seeds, buy water, and all the things required to grow the food?

And then, you are going to have to feed those men too. And unless you think all deadbeat dads, are master farmers, I wager the production of food they create, will be far less than how much they consume.

Your system does not work. If it did.... I would be for it.

Again, how about we just have women stop being irresponsible, and popping out kids when they are not married, or divorcing? How about we avoid having the problem to begin with.

Then the only recourse is to cut off welfare after three months. No if's and's or but's that will save lots of money since your only interest seems to be in saving money. You get three months that's it.

Has almost nothing to do with money.

It has to do with what is best for the mother..... the child... and society.

I don't care how much your child support is. Absolute best thing for the mother, is to not get into that situation to begin with.

I don't care what laws you implement, the absolutely best thing for a child, is not to be in that situation to begin with.

I don't care what programs you make, what funds you spend, what taxes you raise.... the absolute best thing for society is to not have people in this situation to begin with.

Now you are looking at the short term, I get it. In the extreme short term, here's a mother with 5 kids and no job..... let's give her blaw balw blaw blaw balw blaw.

But what is best in the long term? Finland figured this out, by researching education. They discovered that one of the highest predictors of educational success or failure.... wasn't welfare.... wasn't programs.... wasn't education spending... What was it? A father. Fathers raising their children, in a marriage, in a home.

The vast majority of broken families are from unwed girls getting pregnant, and the majority of divorces are initiated by women, for "irreconcilable differences". Which is another way of saying "I'm selfish".

Now again, you want to play the "let's go after deadbeat dads" game.... ok. I'm not opposed to it. Knock yourself out.

But we've been playing that game for the last 50 years. In the immortal words of Dr. Phil "How's that workin for you?"

Then zero welfare. It will solve all your concerns. Close your legs and don't have sex. We will pay you nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see that as very effective. I know some that just, ok I'll go to jail, and they go to jail, and then they get out. And how has this improved anything?

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

How about you focus on having a real family before you start having kids.

Stop getting divorced? Hell they never get married. No. We should go after the fathers. If they choose jail fine we can put them to work growing the food to feed their children.

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

If you don't get married, and you start popping out kids.... I no longer care if you get child support. That is on you for being stupid.

Again, like I said before, your system doesn't work. Go after the fathers all you want. You'll spend more tax money hunting down fathers, than the cost of the food. Growing food? Are you kidding? Like thats going to work. How much money are you going to cough up as a tax payer, to buy land, buy fertilizer, buy pesticides, buy seeds, buy water, and all the things required to grow the food?

And then, you are going to have to feed those men too. And unless you think all deadbeat dads, are master farmers, I wager the production of food they create, will be far less than how much they consume.

Your system does not work. If it did.... I would be for it.

Again, how about we just have women stop being irresponsible, and popping out kids when they are not married, or divorcing? How about we avoid having the problem to begin with.

Then the only recourse is to cut off welfare after three months. No if's and's or but's that will save lots of money since your only interest seems to be in saving money. You get three months that's it.

Has almost nothing to do with money.

It has to do with what is best for the mother..... the child... and society.

I don't care how much your child support is. Absolute best thing for the mother, is to not get into that situation to begin with.

I don't care what laws you implement, the absolutely best thing for a child, is not to be in that situation to begin with.

I don't care what programs you make, what funds you spend, what taxes you raise.... the absolute best thing for society is to not have people in this situation to begin with.

Now you are looking at the short term, I get it. In the extreme short term, here's a mother with 5 kids and no job..... let's give her blaw balw blaw blaw balw blaw.

But what is best in the long term? Finland figured this out, by researching education. They discovered that one of the highest predictors of educational success or failure.... wasn't welfare.... wasn't programs.... wasn't education spending... What was it? A father. Fathers raising their children, in a marriage, in a home.

The vast majority of broken families are from unwed girls getting pregnant, and the majority of divorces are initiated by women, for "irreconcilable differences". Which is another way of saying "I'm selfish".

Now again, you want to play the "let's go after deadbeat dads" game.... ok. I'm not opposed to it. Knock yourself out.

But we've been playing that game for the last 50 years. In the immortal words of Dr. Phil "How's that workin for you?"

Then zero welfare. It will solve all your concerns. Close your legs and don't have sex. We will pay you nothing.

You are already paying my health insurance. Little late.