Children in poverty

[The Infidel]

Real Christians recognize and try to help reduce poverty in America.

False Christians just ignore it and/or make sick jokes about it while trying to rationalize why it exists.

Real christians dont need the gov't to tell us who we should be helping.

I as a christian, help plenty of needie folks through my church and through MY checkbook.... I dont need you nor your ilk to tell me what and who to help....


GOT IT TOOTZ?

 

[FA_Q2]

As someone who grew up in poverty, I suggest people replace their occasional emotional reactions with a cold hard FEARLESS look at the actual causes of poverty.

I grew up poor. We had 6 kids in a 2 bedroom house. No hot water and a toilet that did not flush. I never once growing up think of us as poor. We had a roof over our head. Food in our belly and two parents that loved us. When you compared to what we had and the kids in Africa we had it good. We in America is all about entitlements . What we can get for free . I believe if you work hard you will get what you need and more.

The key phrase in your post is "two loving parents". Nearly 50% of the children living in poverty are in single parent homes. Their chance of dropping out of school is 150% greater than a child living in a two parent home. They are less likely to growup healthy and far more likely to be convinced of a crime.

If we want a better America, we going have to figure how to improve parenting. That is the key to our future.

Exactly. What you seem to fail to understand though is that all these programs that you are trumpeting do EXACTLY the opposite. They take away responsibility and allow the parents to count on the state to care for children that they should be caring for. I tire of this bullshit trumpeting that people have no responsibility in the situation that they are in. Take the video for example as addressed in the next block:

Righties want even MORE American children suffering hunger:

In Four Months, Republicans Introduced 916 Bills Against Women's Right To Choose

How about the Responsibility To Not Have Children You Can't Afford To Support?

Nah.. can't have any of that.

You didn't watch the video, did you, asshole? The people living in the van were making a combined $40 an hour detailing cars.

God, what a moron.

Sure, they had 40 bucks an hour and yet did not save? Where was there fallout cash in case of something like this happening? No responsibility. They had it good and even as they said themselves, they never thought this could happen. Well, it did and everyone should build up enough savings to survive a year without a job. It is good finance. If you can't that is one thing but these people clearly could. They CHOSE not to. Now they are in a tough situation and they have to work themselves out of it. That's the breaks.

Food stamps, welfare and programs like it are not going to help people in general. They are engineered in a way that encourages people to stay in poverty and boost an entitlement mentality that never helps anyone. Do we need a safety net that allows for people to fall on hard times: defiantly. Should the people in the video get some help with food ect. Defiantly. Should we have programs that allow you free government help indefinitely without anything on your part, NO and that is what we have. The entire system needs to be reworked in a way that makes these things TEMPORARY, requires them to be used positively (like WIC) and assist in getting people out of the situation instead of just making them more comfortable in it.


Also: the idea that people do not have access to food is insane. There is food all over the place in HUGE abundance in this country. Blaming obesity on hunger is equally asinine. Either you have access to too little food or not. Parents feeding their children crap food has nothing to do with access. It has to do with ease. It is easier to go to McDonalds or get pre packaged crap food that cooks itself rather than sitting down and feeding your children properly. If SNAP was run like WIC, much of this as well as the abuse/entitlement would be removed from SNAP. I feel that the program would improve 1000 fold as well as the results if it were implemented in that manner.

 

[Flopper]

I grew up poor. We had 6 kids in a 2 bedroom house. No hot water and a toilet that did not flush. I never once growing up think of us as poor. We had a roof over our head. Food in our belly and two parents that loved us. When you compared to what we had and the kids in Africa we had it good. We in America is all about entitlements . What we can get for free . I believe if you work hard you will get what you need and more.

The key phrase in your post is "two loving parents". Nearly 50% of the children living in poverty are in single parent homes. Their chance of dropping out of school is 150% greater than a child living in a two parent home. They are less likely to growup healthy and far more likely to be convinced of a crime.

If we want a better America, we going have to figure how to improve parenting. That is the key to our future.

Exactly. What you seem to fail to understand though is that all these programs that you are trumpeting do EXACTLY the opposite. They take away responsibility and allow the parents to count on the state to care for children that they should be caring for. I tire of this bullshit trumpeting that people have no responsibility in the situation that they are in. Take the video for example as addressed in the next block:

How about the Responsibility To Not Have Children You Can't Afford To Support?

Nah.. can't have any of that.

You didn't watch the video, did you, asshole? The people living in the van were making a combined $40 an hour detailing cars.

God, what a moron.

Sure, they had 40 bucks an hour and yet did not save? Where was there fallout cash in case of something like this happening? No responsibility. They had it good and even as they said themselves, they never thought this could happen. Well, it did and everyone should build up enough savings to survive a year without a job. It is good finance. If you can't that is one thing but these people clearly could. They CHOSE not to. Now they are in a tough situation and they have to work themselves out of it. That's the breaks.

Food stamps, welfare and programs like it are not going to help people in general. They are engineered in a way that encourages people to stay in poverty and boost an entitlement mentality that never helps anyone. Do we need a safety net that allows for people to fall on hard times: defiantly. Should the people in the video get some help with food ect. Defiantly. Should we have programs that allow you free government help indefinitely without anything on your part, NO and that is what we have. The entire system needs to be reworked in a way that makes these things TEMPORARY, requires them to be used positively (like WIC) and assist in getting people out of the situation instead of just making them more comfortable in it.


Also: the idea that people do not have access to food is insane. There is food all over the place in HUGE abundance in this country. Blaming obesity on hunger is equally asinine. Either you have access to too little food or not. Parents feeding their children crap food has nothing to do with access. It has to do with ease. It is easier to go to McDonalds or get pre packaged crap food that cooks itself rather than sitting down and feeding your children properly. If SNAP was run like WIC, much of this as well as the abuse/entitlement would be removed from SNAP. I feel that the program would improve 1000 fold as well as the results if it were implemented in that manner.

We have 3 types of welfare recipient.
1. Hardcore unemployed. This is about 2% to 3% of the population. This groups includes the severely mental, emotional, or physically handicapped, those with no education and no job skills. Regardless of what might be done with government welfare, this group will forever be dependent. This is the group that stays on welfare permanently.

2. Temporary recipients. This was the largest group prior to the recession. They are typically on assistance from 2 to 18 months. They have had good permanent positions but lost them and are looking for work.

3. The working poor. Since the recession, this is now the largest group of recipients and probably the most troubling because they are unlikely to find good jobs and many are not even looking. In this group at least one family member has a job. Often there are multiple family members with temporary or part time jobs.

The first and most important step in reducing welfare is to create more jobs. If you create enough jobs, most of the temporary recipients and working poor will disappear from welfare rolls and SNAP. We have always had big jumps in welfare and food stamp usage in a recession. When jobs return usage decreases.

Most people receiving assistance are the less desirable workers. If they weren't they would have a job. In a tight job market such as this, they will not find jobs because you cut off their lifeline.

 

[BDBoop]

My sister just spent 14 months on unemployment. 54 years old now, and she has held a job ever since she was old enough to hold a waitressing tray. People need to start putting things together, and stop assuming that everybody who isn't working is a slacker, who wants it that way. They just need to "do more" and "try harder", right? The economy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why they're in dire straits.

Talk about kicking people when they're down.

 

[koshergrl]

The key phrase in your post is "two loving parents". Nearly 50% of the children living in poverty are in single parent homes. Their chance of dropping out of school is 150% greater than a child living in a two parent home. They are less likely to growup healthy and far more likely to be convinced of a crime.

If we want a better America, we going have to figure how to improve parenting. That is the key to our future.

Exactly. What you seem to fail to understand though is that all these programs that you are trumpeting do EXACTLY the opposite. They take away responsibility and allow the parents to count on the state to care for children that they should be caring for. I tire of this bullshit trumpeting that people have no responsibility in the situation that they are in. Take the video for example as addressed in the next block:

You didn't watch the video, did you, asshole? The people living in the van were making a combined $40 an hour detailing cars.

God, what a moron.

Sure, they had 40 bucks an hour and yet did not save? Where was there fallout cash in case of something like this happening? No responsibility. They had it good and even as they said themselves, they never thought this could happen. Well, it did and everyone should build up enough savings to survive a year without a job. It is good finance. If you can't that is one thing but these people clearly could. They CHOSE not to. Now they are in a tough situation and they have to work themselves out of it. That's the breaks.

Food stamps, welfare and programs like it are not going to help people in general. They are engineered in a way that encourages people to stay in poverty and boost an entitlement mentality that never helps anyone. Do we need a safety net that allows for people to fall on hard times: defiantly. Should the people in the video get some help with food ect. Defiantly. Should we have programs that allow you free government help indefinitely without anything on your part, NO and that is what we have. The entire system needs to be reworked in a way that makes these things TEMPORARY, requires them to be used positively (like WIC) and assist in getting people out of the situation instead of just making them more comfortable in it.


Also: the idea that people do not have access to food is insane. There is food all over the place in HUGE abundance in this country. Blaming obesity on hunger is equally asinine. Either you have access to too little food or not. Parents feeding their children crap food has nothing to do with access. It has to do with ease. It is easier to go to McDonalds or get pre packaged crap food that cooks itself rather than sitting down and feeding your children properly. If SNAP was run like WIC, much of this as well as the abuse/entitlement would be removed from SNAP. I feel that the program would improve 1000 fold as well as the results if it were implemented in that manner.

We have 3 types of welfare recipient.
1. Hardcore unemployed. This is about 2% to 3% of the population. This groups includes the severely mental, emotional, or physically handicapped, those with no education and no job skills. Regardless of what might be done with government welfare, this group will forever be dependent. This is the group that stays on welfare permanently.

2. Temporary recipients. This was the largest group prior to the recession. They are typically on assistance from 2 to 18 months. They have had good permanent positions but lost them and are looking for work.

3. The working poor. Since the recession, this is now the largest group of recipients and probably the most troubling because they are unlikely to find good jobs and many are not even looking. In this group at least one family member has a job. Often there are multiple family members with temporary or part time jobs.

The first and most important step in reducing welfare is to create more jobs. If you create enough jobs, most of the temporary recipients and working poor will disappear from welfare rolls and SNAP. We have always had big jumps in welfare and food stamp usage in a recession. When jobs return usage decreases.

Most people receiving assistance are the less desirable workers. If they weren't they would have a job. In a tight job market such as this, they will not find jobs because you cut off their lifeline.

Great, you know how to fabricate statistics!

Cash welfare recipients don't work because they are unwilling or incapable of working. They aren't on welfare because there are no jobs; they are on welfare because they are unemployable or because they refuse to work. This is why the government spends untold billions of dollars on programs meant to prepare them for work and teach them how to work, as well as how to look for work.

They bring the employers in and provide the classes with applications, and perform interviews during classes. The welfare recipients don't work because they can't pass background and/or drug tests, or just because they refuse to work. They don't like the job, they don't like the hours, they don't like their boss, they don't like..whatever.

 

[Wicked Jester]

My sister just spent 14 months on unemployment. 54 years old now, and she has held a job ever since she was old enough to hold a waitressing tray. People need to start putting things together, and stop assuming that everybody who isn't working is a slacker, who wants it that way. They just need to "do more" and "try harder", right? The economy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why they're in dire straits.

Talk about kicking people when they're down.

People ARE putting things together......We have an inept President who is completely economically illiterate. He is a not a leader in any way. He is taking this country down the friggin' tubes. You might want to start holding him accountable for your sisters plight. He's the president, it's all on his inept shoulders. He's failed this country. He's failed your sister.

Now, if you actually had the ability to follow a debate, you would see it's about the topic YOU started, Children in Poverty......Nobody is kicking anybody when they are down. They're identifying the root causes.....And yes, liberal policies are a major root cause of the problem....As are people who purposely bleed off the system......As are irresponsible morons who spread their legs for every Tom's Hairy Dick that comes around, without a care in the world as to the consequenses, or the fact that those Tom's Hairy Dicks will NEVER contributre to the childrens lives.......And liberals try to play that stupid shit that single motherhood is a noble thing.

Give me a fuckin' break.

 

[Flopper]

Exactly. What you seem to fail to understand though is that all these programs that you are trumpeting do EXACTLY the opposite. They take away responsibility and allow the parents to count on the state to care for children that they should be caring for. I tire of this bullshit trumpeting that people have no responsibility in the situation that they are in. Take the video for example as addressed in the next block:


Sure, they had 40 bucks an hour and yet did not save? Where was there fallout cash in case of something like this happening? No responsibility. They had it good and even as they said themselves, they never thought this could happen. Well, it did and everyone should build up enough savings to survive a year without a job. It is good finance. If you can't that is one thing but these people clearly could. They CHOSE not to. Now they are in a tough situation and they have to work themselves out of it. That's the breaks.

Food stamps, welfare and programs like it are not going to help people in general. They are engineered in a way that encourages people to stay in poverty and boost an entitlement mentality that never helps anyone. Do we need a safety net that allows for people to fall on hard times: defiantly. Should the people in the video get some help with food ect. Defiantly. Should we have programs that allow you free government help indefinitely without anything on your part, NO and that is what we have. The entire system needs to be reworked in a way that makes these things TEMPORARY, requires them to be used positively (like WIC) and assist in getting people out of the situation instead of just making them more comfortable in it.


Also: the idea that people do not have access to food is insane. There is food all over the place in HUGE abundance in this country. Blaming obesity on hunger is equally asinine. Either you have access to too little food or not. Parents feeding their children crap food has nothing to do with access. It has to do with ease. It is easier to go to McDonalds or get pre packaged crap food that cooks itself rather than sitting down and feeding your children properly. If SNAP was run like WIC, much of this as well as the abuse/entitlement would be removed from SNAP. I feel that the program would improve 1000 fold as well as the results if it were implemented in that manner.

We have 3 types of welfare recipient.
1. Hardcore unemployed. This is about 2% to 3% of the population. This groups includes the severely mental, emotional, or physically handicapped, those with no education and no job skills. Regardless of what might be done with government welfare, this group will forever be dependent. This is the group that stays on welfare permanently.

2. Temporary recipients. This was the largest group prior to the recession. They are typically on assistance from 2 to 18 months. They have had good permanent positions but lost them and are looking for work.

3. The working poor. Since the recession, this is now the largest group of recipients and probably the most troubling because they are unlikely to find good jobs and many are not even looking. In this group at least one family member has a job. Often there are multiple family members with temporary or part time jobs.

The first and most important step in reducing welfare is to create more jobs. If you create enough jobs, most of the temporary recipients and working poor will disappear from welfare rolls and SNAP. We have always had big jumps in welfare and food stamp usage in a recession. When jobs return usage decreases.

Most people receiving assistance are the less desirable workers. If they weren't they would have a job. In a tight job market such as this, they will not find jobs because you cut off their lifeline.

Great, you know how to fabricate statistics!

Cash welfare recipients don't work because they are unwilling or incapable of working. They aren't on welfare because there are no jobs; they are on welfare because they are unemployable or because they refuse to work. This is why the government spends untold billions of dollars on programs meant to prepare them for work and teach them how to work, as well as how to look for work.

They bring the employers in and provide the classes with applications, and perform interviews during classes. The welfare recipients don't work because they can't pass background and/or drug tests, or just because they refuse to work. They don't like the job, they don't like the hours, they don't like their boss, they don't like..whatever.

If you include Medicaid and food stamps, you’re talking about 50 million people. They are certainly not all lazy and incapable of working. That is a gross exaggeration. However, a large percentage of those on the doll are addicted to drugs and alcoholism. In addition, they commonly suffer from poor parenting, poor education, lack of job skills, and emotional and mental handicaps. In other words, they have the characteristic that would send any sane employer running. The right says cut off all assistance to these people. Then they will find jobs and become responsible members of society. That is completely asinine. You need only look at history to see what happens when a nation turns it’s back on the lowest rung of society. You will have increased poverty, crime rates, and class warfare.

The current situation is not good, mainly due to the lack of jobs, however we can certainly make it a lot worse. Changes in our public assistance laws are needed but that of course is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[koshergrl]

You're correct..when I refer to welfare I am referring to cash benefits.

Medical and SNAP have much higher income standards and the majority of the people who access them ARE the working poor.

 

[koshergrl]

Public assistance laws are changing and they change all the time.