Georgia has discovered the cure for poverty!

[cnelsen]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.

Not true.

Absolutely true, and I have first hand knowledge of one case, while the practice is well-known in the hood.

 

[IM2]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.

Not true.

Absolutely true, and I have first hand knowledge of one case, while the practice is well-known in the hood.

It's not true and I have 32 years and more than 5,000 cases that say different.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.

Oh, I know they do. I understand in NYC, they have (or had, it's been a while since I heard about it) a game where the object is for the males to impregnate as many women in a certain time frame as possible. I don't know the prize was for the winner, probably a stolen gun or something.

 

[IM2]

Let's say we have a Mom and two kids. So Gross income would be a whopping $21000/yr less FICA of $1125 we have a take home pay of $19,875 or $1656/mo. The average cost of 1 bedroom apartment in largest 200 cities in the US is $1,025 leaving $631 a month or $147/week to live on. Now if Mom is really smart, extremely frugal, she just might be able to buy groceries and pay utilities, walk miles to works instead of paying $4/day to ride the bus, convince the teachers to provide schools supplies and miscellaneous expense for the kids, never buy new clothes for the family, never go to a dentist, a barbershop or a hair salon, never drink, never smoke, never pay credit card interest, and certainly not squander money on toys for the kids, Christmas, birthdays, entertainment, etc..

The problem is most people that can't seem to find a job and are living on welfare are not that smart. Most have vices. They drink, smoke, or do drugs and certainly aren't very frugal. They throw their money away on stuff for the kids, don't know how to really budget, run out of money, and then borrow at a high interest rates.

So while this plan fits the 1% of those on government subsidies, what happens to the other 99%?

The question would then be why would somebody have children when they don't make enough money to have them?

You don't have to be "not that smart" to understand you are unable to make the kind of money to support a family. In fact, even if you are completely dumb, you kind of figure that out.

The "not so smart" people have figured out we don't let people do without in this country, so they are careless or perhaps even intentionally have children they know they can't afford. Because they are not that smart, they don't understand where the help or money comes from, just that it does.

You people on the left want to address the problems after they happen--not before. Don't worry about being proactive, worry about the problems we have in front of us, and let people continue to make more of those problems.

In the hood, women have children specifically to get a larger apartment.

Oh, I know they do. I understand in NYC, they have (or had, it's been a while since I heard about it) a game where the object is for the males to impregnate as many women in a certain time frame as possible. I don't know the prize was for the winner, probably a stolen gun or something.

None of what you say is true. There is no such game, and in fact everything you have to say on this topic is made up and false.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How does volunteering for a charity reduce poverty?

Seems that you idiots have forgotten that one can only receive welfare for 5 years total. You have forgotten that you can only get if for 2 years consecutively at any time. Then you're gone for a year whether you have a job or not. And I guess that those PFCS in our military who work and put their lives on the line for this country in our stupid ass wars we don't need to fight just need to re arrange their mindsets because they live in poverty.

You will not end poverty by just telling people to go find a job. The job must pay enough for people to not live in poverty. So how about we provide a national living wage of 15 dollars per hour with price increase freezes on businesses.

so no one gets any welfare money for more than 5 years total in their life time?

That is obviously wrong

and tell me how increasing the cost of business by increasing labor costs all while preventing businesses from raising the prices of goods and services will result in more jobs.

What happens when the cost of running a business is greater than the revenue of that business?

can you tell me that?

 

[IM2]

How does volunteering for a charity reduce poverty?

Seems that you idiots have forgotten that one can only receive welfare for 5 years total. You have forgotten that you can only get if for 2 years consecutively at any time. Then you're gone for a year whether you have a job or not. And I guess that those PFCS in our military who work and put their lives on the line for this country in our stupid ass wars we don't need to fight just need to re arrange their mindsets because they live in poverty.

You will not end poverty by just telling people to go find a job. The job must pay enough for people to not live in poverty. So how about we provide a national living wage of 15 dollars per hour with price increase freezes on businesses.

so no one gets any welfare money for more than 5 years total in their life time?

That is obviously wrong

and tell me how increasing the cost of business by increasing labor costs all while preventing businesses from raising the prices of goods and services will result in more jobs.

What happens when the cost of running a business is greater than the revenue of that business?

can you tell me that?

Well unless the law that was passed in the 90's has been repealed the fact is that there is a 5 year lifetime total for welfare.

Simple, the owner reduces the amount of the profit they take home for themselves.

A business must make a certain amount of money before they have to pay the minimum wage. Do you know how much that is?

You guys talk all this business shit but you know little to nothing about business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How does volunteering for a charity reduce poverty?

Seems that you idiots have forgotten that one can only receive welfare for 5 years total. You have forgotten that you can only get if for 2 years consecutively at any time. Then you're gone for a year whether you have a job or not. And I guess that those PFCS in our military who work and put their lives on the line for this country in our stupid ass wars we don't need to fight just need to re arrange their mindsets because they live in poverty.

You will not end poverty by just telling people to go find a job. The job must pay enough for people to not live in poverty. So how about we provide a national living wage of 15 dollars per hour with price increase freezes on businesses.

so no one gets any welfare money for more than 5 years total in their life time?

That is obviously wrong

and tell me how increasing the cost of business by increasing labor costs all while preventing businesses from raising the prices of goods and services will result in more jobs.

What happens when the cost of running a business is greater than the revenue of that business?

can you tell me that?

Well unless the law that was passed in the 90's has been repealed the fact is that there is a 5 year lifetime total for welfare.

Simple, the owner reduces the amount of the profit they take home for themselves.

A business must make a certain amount of money before they have to pay the minimum wage. Do you know how much that is?

You guys talk all this business shit but you know little to nothing about business.

and just how much of a profit do you think most small businesses make? The majority of all S corps have a profit margin in the single digits

If you are talking about the FLSA then you are ignoring the fact that all businesses are also beholden to their state labor laws even if they are exempt from the FLSA

And FYI I have owned and operated a small business for the last 10 years and before that have worked for myself since i was 20

so yeah I know a lot about running a business.

 

[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'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We should make similar requirement for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parent 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'.

you do know that trucking companies pay more state and federal fees for roads than the rest of the public don't you?

 

[dblack]

When you tolerate the intolerant, you become their accomplice.

Off-topic, but I'm curious - were you going for Zen irony here? Because, if you don't tolerate the intolerant, you join their ranks.

 

[dblack]

We should make similar requirement for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parent 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'.

you do know that trucking companies pay more state and federal fees for roads than the rest of the public don't you?

I do. But in most cases, it doesn't cover their real usage. Rather than quibble about details, care to address the point?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We should make similar requirement for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parent 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'.

you do know that trucking companies pay more state and federal fees for roads than the rest of the public don't you?

I do. But in most cases, it doesn't cover their real usage. Rather than quibble about details, care to address the point?

so do the taxes the general public pay cover their "real" usage?

 

[dblack]

We should make similar requirement for any government program where recipients are getting more than they pay in. Parent 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'.

you do know that trucking companies pay more state and federal fees for roads than the rest of the public don't you?

I do. But in most cases, it doesn't cover their real usage. Rather than quibble about details, care to address the point?

so do the taxes the general public pay cover their "real" usage?

Nope. That's my point. That's the nature of government.

That's why I see these policies as such a threat to liberty. It's just another example of government forcing us to pay for a program, and then making us jump through hoops to utilize it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Maine like Georgia's regulation applies only to able bodied adults without dependents. The elderly are not considered by either state in the program. What this means is 90% of food stamp recipients are not part of the program. Existing federal regulation place a time limit on the use of food stamps for able bodied adults without dependents to 3 months over a 36 month period. Federal regulations require that during this time period they must be registered and actively looking for employment and must accept any job offered that they are qualified for. Since over 75% of these people have jobs in 30 to 60 days, this programs is accomplishing little if anything.

Instead creating these ridiculous programs that do little or nothing, what states should be doing is monitoring employment of recipients more closely. Although regulations require recipients to report income and stop using their SNAP card when they become ineligible, most people continue to use them until the state stops them which can be up a year after they are no longer eligible. The states are responsible for this but are ignoring it and as such, many millions are wasted.

What these requirements demonstrate is that most people on food stamps really don't need them. Let me ask: if all of a sudden we ended the food stamp program, do you really believe people would just stop eating?

Of course not. They would just start buying their own food. They may have to make cuts in other places such as their cigarettes, their alcohol, maybe get rid of their multiple pets they are feeding, but they are not about to stop eating. And when they are paying for their own food, it won't be frozen TV dinners, steaks or ribs. They would have to purchase food within their budget just like working people do every day.

My father retired over 20 years ago, same with my mother. Why are they not getting food stamps? Could it be because my father was responsible enough to secure his and my mothers retirement? Could it be because he worked hard all of his life and built a social security account that enabled him to retire comfortably?

It's my speculation that if you are elderly and getting food stamps, you probably didn't work much in your working life when you could have.

Arrogant idiots like you are pigs. You rely on every stereotype to attack people and unless you have asked them you d0on't have a clue. The fact is that you have to be at the poverty level to get food stamps. It is not something that is handed out willy nilly which you imply.

Who sets the poverty level?


.

 

[danielpalos]

yawn. The left is consumed with creating victims.

With what? A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and healthcare?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

whiner. get better at tax avoidance like the poor, and Mr. Trump.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

whiner. get better at tax avoidance like the poor, and Mr. Trump.

funny coming from a guy who doesn't have an income

 

[danielpalos]

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.

whiner. get better at tax avoidance like the poor, and Mr. Trump.

funny coming from a guy who doesn't have an income

even funnier from a guy who complains about taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

whiner. get better at tax avoidance like the poor, and Mr. Trump.

funny coming from a guy who doesn't have an income

even funnier from a guy who complains about taxes.

Hey at least I pay taxes

if you actually paid any taxes you'd complain too

 

[danielpalos]

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.

whiner. get better at tax avoidance like the poor, and Mr. Trump.

funny coming from a guy who doesn't have an income

even funnier from a guy who complains about taxes.

Hey at least I pay taxes

if you actually paid any taxes you'd complain too

Get better at tax avoidance before I start claiming, only fools and horses should Have to work and pay taxes, just so they can complain about it.