Okay Maggie, I apologize. You did go back and respond to that post after I pointed out you had not done so. You and I obviously have a very different definition for 'plan' however. You seem to be confusing 'plan' with 'procedure' but let's get past that for the moment.
You say beans and rice are hardly nutritious? That would come as astounding news to nutritionists who have studied the diets of people who pretty much depend on rice and beans to survive and those of us who are rounding up and sending tons of the stuff to the poor in Mexico who don't ask for anything else. Those who get enough of them are not malnourished.
But shoot. What do YOU consider the proper diet to feed people who are on the government dole? You think they should get steak and chicken? How about crab and lobster? Artichokes? Asparagus? Broccoli? Where do you draw the line between what people need and what people would like to have?
Survival on strictly beans and rice is what third world countries provide. This is the United States of America, the richest country in the world. Chicken is cheap. The claim that food stamps are regularly used for lobster is ridiculous. That, of course, is an infamous right-wing talking point which you're simply parroting. Do they buy junk food? OF COURSE!!! Junk food is c.h.e.a.p. Should a shopping list of covered food items be provided when someone qualifies for food stamp allotments? Probably not, but a list of exclusions (like lobster) probably should be included. After all, there are exclusions for toilet paper which always seemed odd to me, so they might as well add steak, lobster, 90% hamburger, asparagus and POM juice to that list.
How do you equate making people comfortable in poverty to be more compassionate than giving people incentive to want to escape poverty? Can you not believe that making people comfortable in poverty has contributed to generations of people living in poverty?
Yes, I do. And in so many words I've said so. But they will not have the "incentive" until they are pushed out of lives of illiteracy and ignorance BY EDUCATION. Why haven't you countered that, which I've harped on throughout? It's okay to agree with me, you know, on at least one thing.
I have personally inspected enough Section 8 housing to know for a fact that many people who live in it don't give a flying fig about what happens to it. Do you really have an objection to a requirement that people who live in government housing be required to keep it clean and well maintained? And that contents be inventoried so we know when people are no longer indigent but are affording things that suggest they can also afford to pay their own rent?What possible objection could you have to that?
I've already addressed the maintenance issue with Section 8 housing, but inspectors cannot legally go any further than "damage" to the property. They have no control (nor should they) over how 'messy' a tenant is. And as for inventorying their PERSONAL ITEMS, I can only imagine how someone from the right would be screaming from the rooftops that their Constitutional privacy rights had been violated. What if a big screen television set was a gift? Why should anyone have to "prove" that? Are you kidding????? That pesky Constitution gets in the way of your best laid plans, eh?
Do you think people receiving food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, child care etc. etc. for free should have absolutely no expectations or requirements imposed on them in return for that?
No, I do not. And there ARE strict requirements already in place (which you should know, since you claim to work with these people regularly). But once again, I do not for one moment think that most people who find themselves in the position of having to accept government social benefits do so with the intent to con the system(s). Bad behavior is NOT the norm.
And temporary or permanent sterilization is Hitleresque you say? (Boy it didn't take long for Godwin's law to be evoked, huh.) So rather than ensure that more children will not be born into poverty, you prefer to encourage poor people to have more and more children that will grow up in poverty? And, as history has revealed, will likely remain in poverty as will their children. How do you square that with compassion?
The man was suggesting sterilization, for God's sake. Maybe I should have said "Saddam-esque"?? What difference does it make?
You probably object to my suggestion that people who cannot or will not adequately suppot their children should not have children or the children should be taken away until they can and will adequately support them. It wouldn't take more than a relatively short experiment with that policy before we would get back to the times when parents expected to support their families and children at risk in the home were rare.
I never objected to that; in fact, I offered a solution similar to Welfare to Work where the parent(s) who seem to have no control over the number of children they produce be required to get training for a job by a certain time and in the meantime if they have another child, that child would not be added to their monthly welfare check.
And yes dear. I have devoted a great deal of my adult life, both as a vocation and as a volunteer, working directly with the poor and low income families. That is a far different situation than helping intermittantly with relief for the homeless or a part time volunteer at school which, though commendable, is not at all the same thing.
to this response.
