When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

[irosie91]

You must be one of those "christian right wing" believers of jesus.

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

You need not be happy if you do not wish to be happy and
would rather see children dying of malnutrition

 

[danielpalos]

You must be one of those "christian right wing" believers of jesus.

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

That should require a moral of "goodwill toward men".

 

[Dana7360]

Either that or we are tired of Daddy having 17 kids to 17 different women, that he never intends to support while using welfare money for liquor and titty bars. Kids having babies that they have no intention of ever working to support. Tired of watching the parents sell snap for crack, while their kids eat a bag of noodles because it is the only thing in the house except for the kids.

Want assistance? Take a drug test and then show up for community service.

Shouldn't the parents care as much about their own children as the rest of us are forced to?

Lol it's amazing to me the way you people just buy into cliches and stereotypes so easily. You people jus believe what you want to believe. Um who cares what this very atypical guy did with 17 women. This is about the kids obviously.

You need to educate yourself on basic facts. The actual occurrence of drug use by SNAP recipients is extremely low. Statistics prove that. Stop believing shit just because it sounds like it makes sense. I'm sure it makes demonizing these people easier but you sounds like jackass.

No clichés, no stereotypes. I fostered the children who had nothing to eat but a bag of noodles. The man I paid to teach members of my youth group to play the drums, boasted of 11 kids. None of which he gives a dime, because turns out all of his money went to crack. The youth group kids watched his arrest on the news. Two of the children I took in only saw their mother when she ran out of money and tricks at the crack house. Not one dime of her handouts went to her children. Not one Christmas present and no tree to put it under. Just crack. The local news sued to get records of welfare cards being swiped at liquors stores and titty bars. They showed the 2 foot high stack of paperwork with one account after another of misuse. I fed those kids. I bought them everything they needed, because their welfare crack head parents did nothing for them.
I speak from experience, where does your opinion come from? Gov. statistics? Stop believing that shit.

Want to help the children? Drug test their parents, jackass.

I don't know what state you live in but here in my state, if someone tried to swipe an EBT card to pay for a bar tab or at a strip club, that card won't work. The computers are set up to only pay for certain food. The computer POS sale system that the businesses set up are set up to not be able to take EBT cards. Which is why the government went to those cards instead of sending out paper food stamps. The government can control it much better and fraud has been reduced to low levels.

I was at the store just yesterday and a lady in front of me had an EBT card. She bought some food and non food items. The clerk rang up the food items separately from the non food items. The card was used for the food, she paid cash for the non food items. It took a while and the line grew very long because of it but the store complies with federal regulations on EBT cards. You see, just like a bar or strip club, they don't want to get in trouble with the government.

If you were being honest about this stack of paperwork you would have known that an EBT card doesn't produce stacks of paperwork and that two foot tall stack is either made up in your mind or just stacks of files that have nothing to do with EBT cards.

What you don't know is JP Morgan Chase bank processes most if not all of the EBT transactions in America. So they do the paperwork. All the store does is separate the food from non food and generates a receipt of what was bought. So that bar and strip club must have had thousands upon thousands of EBT users to generate that much paperwork from receipts.

But hey, I could be wrong. Your state may not have complied with the federal government regulations and just left those cards open to being used anywhere.

 

[Dana7360]

Find me a quote from a remotely mainstream, elected Republican saying we should cut off SNAP to single mothers. As far as I can determine, the only thing Republicans have tried to do with such programs, at least for the last two decades, is merely to slow their growth.

This OP is just the kind of demagoguery and mud-slinging that makes civil, intelligent debate almost impossible.

WHY aren't libs screaming about the the $700 billion that Obama cut from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare? Can you imagine if a Republican president had proposed a health care plan that involved taking that much money from Medicare? And, no, this is not a "myth." At least the Washington Post has admitted that Obamacare does reduce Medicare by $700 bill, through what it calls "savings"--yeah, like huge cuts in how much Medicare reimburses hospitals and private health insurance companies. And guess who's gonna have to pay the difference?

Actually there is nothing to do with SNAP and single mothers, other than many SNAP beneficiaries are singe mothers, or rather households with one primary provider. WIC is the program for single mothers, very limited and specific in what they can purchase with benefits.

The OP is beyond over the top,

WIC isn't just for single mothers in my state. Anyone with a baby who can't afford to feed that baby can apply for WIC.

A good friend of mine did that in the 80s. Her husband found a job after she got pregnant so the insurance they had through his employer wouldn't pay for the prenatal care or delivery. They classified it as a preexisting condition and refused to pay even one penny. So even though her husband was working, they didn't have enough to feed themselves or their new baby. They applied for WIC and received the benefits for a couple years.

 

[Dana7360]

By and large republicans don't give a **** about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Yup. I agree.

I have no problem with single parents as long as they can support themselves and the kids.

Why should the taxpayers of America be forced to bankroll their lives for them when they irresponsibly have kids they can't afford.

Stop the free ride and see how long it takes them to get off their asses, get a job and take care of themselves. As long as that free ride is there they won't do squat except take the handout of all that "free" money and don't think for a minute that they give shit one where that money comes from because they don't. As long as that EBT card has somebody elses money in it every month they could care less where it came from and who worked their asses off to earn it.

I'm one taxpayer who's sick and tired of being forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

Get a ******* job.

You may as well put a neon sign on your house telling those very hungry kids that they're welcome to rob your home. Take whatever they want to feed themselves.

Because your attitude will leave people hungry. When people are hungry they resort to theft to eat.

So you may as well make sure they're fed because the alternative is much worse.

 

[Dana7360]

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

Are you ******* kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.

You just don't know jack shit about how to cook.

Therein lies the problem, MOST people do not know how to cook nutritious meals.

SNAP should be phased out in favour of a program of commodities distribution and home gardening instructions and supplies.

And if that single parent works and doesn't have time to garden? Or lives in a condo or apartment complex? Or has no yard? Or just can't garden (like me - I have a black thumb)? What then?

I don't know anyone who can grow meat in a garden.

I don't know anyone who can grow beverages such as milk in a garden.

These people aren't dealing with reality.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Dana, I was referring to a news story on a station in West Virginia that borders my state. They had to sue to get the information, and when they did there was a pile of papers on the desk of the news caster. No names, just account #'s. Hundreds of them with illegal purchases at liquor stores and strip clubs. They were able to walk right in a swipe the card. That was the reason for the investigation. I don't know if that investigation brought about change or not. I am all for helping people but have a problem when it enables the parents, at the expense of the children.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.

Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?

Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.

That all seems reasonable to me and it's currently how insurance works. Tax payers don't find contraceptives, insurance companies cover the cost. Tax payers don't fund abortions, women have to pay for them.

Tax payers fund financial assistance programs because it makes sense in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world not to have shanty towns or people starving in the streets with high crime rates like Mexico or Bolivia or Somalia. It benefits us all.

If a woman has a child and can't support that child, what should we, as a nation, do? If the circumstances are temporary, doesn't it make sense to provide assistance until she gets back on her feet? If it's permanent or chronic, what then? Too bad for the kid? Starve or beg? Foster home?

Ahh...so now you have hit it on the nose. I ask you think about this.....for years we have had programs for the needy...and we do not have shanty towns and parents losing their children to foster homes ..

And during those years we have had republican presidents and congresses that could have eliminated such programs, but did not for they AND their constituents understood the need for those programs to feed and house the needy and their children

But now it has turned into free cell phones; free college; free healthcare (as opposed to ER and clinic free care); free broadband....

Yet for some reason, those against these NEW program are questioned as to why they want little children to starve.

And thus this trhead.

We don't want little children to starve. We want them to learn the importance of earning things.

The GOP leadership hasn't eliminated Social Security, but Bush tried to. They haven't eliminated SNAP or WIC, but they've cut those programs citing "lazy people, welfare queens, young bucks on food stamps". They refuse to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover those in poverty. You're right, they haven't eliminated them, must everything but... Meanwhile, this thread has some conservatives, outliers maybe, who are demonstrating that they do want these programs eliminated. I have had these arguments on other threads. You maybe a reasonable conservative, but some on your side aren't. My side has it's share of loonies, communists, etc. don't get me wrong.

The Lifeline (or Obamaphone) program started under Reagan and was expanded to include wireless services under Bush Jr. It isn't a free cell phone, it's subsidized phone service for those who qualify.

Free college for two years is arguably a good thing for a nation that needs educated and skilled workers since manufacturing has declined. It will never happen.

Free healthcare only exists for vets, and for the free riders who are being eliminated from the system under the ACA.

I've never heard of a program or heard anyone demanding free broadband. I'm not accusing you of lying, but it sounds like an extreme outlier position at best.

I don't believe that fiscal conservatives who oppose government spending on free phones, free college, free healthcare, or free broadband are being accused of wanting to starve children. Those who oppose SNAP and WIC are, and rightfully so.

The conservative voters seem to idolize the rich and villify the poor. They cut social assistance programs and taxes for the wealthy. Welfare only lasts a couple of years, the vast majority of those who require it are on it temporarily, statistical evidence does not support that welfare programs suffer from widespread fraud or abuse nor that those on it are drug addicts with nice cars and big tv's.

If you don't like the messaging from the left, take a look at the right and ask yourself which is worse: help the poor you rich asshole or let them eat the crumbs from our tables like the undeserving dogs they are.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wait, now the abortion- on-demand crowd cares about the children?

Laughable...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.

Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?

Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.

That all seems reasonable to me and it's currently how insurance works. Tax payers don't find contraceptives, insurance companies cover the cost. Tax payers don't fund abortions, women have to pay for them.

Tax payers fund financial assistance programs because it makes sense in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world not to have shanty towns or people starving in the streets with high crime rates like Mexico or Bolivia or Somalia. It benefits us all.

If a woman has a child and can't support that child, what should we, as a nation, do? If the circumstances are temporary, doesn't it make sense to provide assistance until she gets back on her feet? If it's permanent or chronic, what then? Too bad for the kid? Starve or beg? Foster home?

Ahh...so now you have hit it on the nose. I ask you think about this.....for years we have had programs for the needy...and we do not have shanty towns and parents losing their children to foster homes ..

And during those years we have had republican presidents and congresses that could have eliminated such programs, but did not for they AND their constituents understood the need for those programs to feed and house the needy and their children

But now it has turned into free cell phones; free college; free healthcare (as opposed to ER and clinic free care); free broadband....

Yet for some reason, those against these NEW program are questioned as to why they want little children to starve.

And thus this trhead.

We don't want little children to starve. We want them to learn the importance of earning things.

The GOP leadership hasn't eliminated Social Security, but Bush tried to. They haven't eliminated SNAP or WIC, but they've cut those programs citing "lazy people, welfare queens, young bucks on food stamps". They refuse to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover those in poverty. You're right, they haven't eliminated them, must everything but... Meanwhile, this thread has some conservatives, outliers maybe, who are demonstrating that they do want these programs eliminated. I have had these arguments on other threads. You maybe a reasonable conservative, but some on your side aren't. My side has it's share of loonies, communists, etc. don't get me wrong.

The Lifeline (or Obamaphone) program started under Reagan and was expanded to include wireless services under Bush Jr. It isn't a free cell phone, it's subsidized phone service for those who qualify.

Free college for two years is arguably a good thing for a nation that needs educated and skilled workers since manufacturing has declined. It will never happen.

Free healthcare only exists for vets, and for the free riders who are being eliminated from the system under the ACA.

I've never heard of a program or heard anyone demanding free broadband. I'm not accusing you of lying, but it sounds like an extreme outlier position at best.

I don't believe that fiscal conservatives who oppose government spending on free phones, free college, free healthcare, or free broadband are being accused of wanting to starve children. Those who oppose SNAP and WIC are, and rightfully so.

The conservative voters seem to idolize the rich and villify the poor. They cut social assistance programs and taxes for the wealthy. Welfare only lasts a couple of years, the vast majority of those who require it are on it temporarily, statistical evidence does not support that welfare programs suffer from widespread fraud or abuse nor that those on it are drug addicts with nice cars and big tv's.

If you don't like the messaging from the left, take a look at the right and ask yourself which is worse: help the poor you rich asshole or let them eat the crumbs from our tables like the undeserving dogs they are.

Or, you leftwing fuckers could stop advocating policies that create more and more people totally dependent on their fellow citizens?

 

[jasonnfree]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

"They" who, sOn?
This shit with you is getting old.

Any links or quotes where someone said this shit?

Surprised you haven't seen the responses you need links for, sOn! Post #15. Standard republican hate filled response you couldn't seem to find. Took me about thirty seconds to find.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?

Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.

That all seems reasonable to me and it's currently how insurance works. Tax payers don't find contraceptives, insurance companies cover the cost. Tax payers don't fund abortions, women have to pay for them.

Tax payers fund financial assistance programs because it makes sense in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world not to have shanty towns or people starving in the streets with high crime rates like Mexico or Bolivia or Somalia. It benefits us all.

If a woman has a child and can't support that child, what should we, as a nation, do? If the circumstances are temporary, doesn't it make sense to provide assistance until she gets back on her feet? If it's permanent or chronic, what then? Too bad for the kid? Starve or beg? Foster home?

Ahh...so now you have hit it on the nose. I ask you think about this.....for years we have had programs for the needy...and we do not have shanty towns and parents losing their children to foster homes ..

And during those years we have had republican presidents and congresses that could have eliminated such programs, but did not for they AND their constituents understood the need for those programs to feed and house the needy and their children

But now it has turned into free cell phones; free college; free healthcare (as opposed to ER and clinic free care); free broadband....

Yet for some reason, those against these NEW program are questioned as to why they want little children to starve.

And thus this trhead.

We don't want little children to starve. We want them to learn the importance of earning things.

The GOP leadership hasn't eliminated Social Security, but Bush tried to. They haven't eliminated SNAP or WIC, but they've cut those programs citing "lazy people, welfare queens, young bucks on food stamps". They refuse to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover those in poverty. You're right, they haven't eliminated them, must everything but... Meanwhile, this thread has some conservatives, outliers maybe, who are demonstrating that they do want these programs eliminated. I have had these arguments on other threads. You maybe a reasonable conservative, but some on your side aren't. My side has it's share of loonies, communists, etc. don't get me wrong.

The Lifeline (or Obamaphone) program started under Reagan and was expanded to include wireless services under Bush Jr. It isn't a free cell phone, it's subsidized phone service for those who qualify.

Free college for two years is arguably a good thing for a nation that needs educated and skilled workers since manufacturing has declined. It will never happen.

Free healthcare only exists for vets, and for the free riders who are being eliminated from the system under the ACA.

I've never heard of a program or heard anyone demanding free broadband. I'm not accusing you of lying, but it sounds like an extreme outlier position at best.

I don't believe that fiscal conservatives who oppose government spending on free phones, free college, free healthcare, or free broadband are being accused of wanting to starve children. Those who oppose SNAP and WIC are, and rightfully so.

The conservative voters seem to idolize the rich and villify the poor. They cut social assistance programs and taxes for the wealthy. Welfare only lasts a couple of years, the vast majority of those who require it are on it temporarily, statistical evidence does not support that welfare programs suffer from widespread fraud or abuse nor that those on it are drug addicts with nice cars and big tv's.

If you don't like the messaging from the left, take a look at the right and ask yourself which is worse: help the poor you rich asshole or let them eat the crumbs from our tables like the undeserving dogs they are.

Or, you leftwing fuckers could stop advocating policies that create more and more people totally dependent on their fellow citizens?

I don't assume that people become dependent on government assistance; mostly because they don't. The majority of families on welfare programs only receive benefits temporarily.

You seem to have a very dim view of your fellow citizens.

 

[Borillar]

These kids are already born. If they were fetuses, repugs would be more concerned. Probably not enough to provide SNAP though.

 

[jasonnfree]

These kids are already born. If they were fetuses, repugs would be more concerned. Probably not enough to provide SNAP though.

Fetuses don't cost republicans any money. It's after the birth. If the Mom can't make it without some help from the taxpayers is when the repubs start to crank up the hate. Now the baby might be costing them fifty cents or a dollar. So much for the sanctity of life for these hypocrites.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Hate to say it but the children should be removed from the home if there is any indication the parent is unable to raise them properly.
It may suck for a few years but in the long run it would be better for the black community.
If you aren't willing to make the hard decisions then you might as well write of the black community,because they sure havent shown any inclination to fix it themselves.

 

[Slyhunter]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Poor people shouldn't have kids.

 

[Flopper]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Hate to say it but the children should be removed from the home if there is any indication the parent is unable to raise them properly.
It may suck for a few years but in the long run it would be better for the black community.
If you aren't willing to make the hard decisions then you might as well write of the black community,because they sure havent shown any inclination to fix it themselves.

It depends on what you mean by raise them properly. Even in rather crappy homes, taking kids away from parents is usually a bad decision because most of them will end up in institutions and foster care.

Studies show that abused or neglected children placed in foster care face lifelong challenges far greater than children who remain with their families. Only 15% will be adopted and a number of these fall back into the system. 13% of kids in foster care run away and another 9 percent abandon their foster homes to live with friends. That means 22% live without any adult supervision. 25% will become homeless and 20% will end up serving time in prison. They are 6 times more likely to dropout of school than kids left in the home and 8 times more likely to end up on government support programs.

Children left in their own homes are far less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, far less likely to wind up in the juvenile justice system and far more likely to hold a job for at least three months than comparably maltreated children who were placed in foster care.

The cost is also significant. 8 years of foster care will cost approximately $240,000. To that you have to add the cost of prison which 20% of them will end up at an average of $30,000/yr plus the cost government support programs.

Only when children are in real danger should they be removed from the home.
U.S. Foster Care A Flawed Solution That Leads To More Long-Term Problems STIR Journal

 

[Coloradomtnman]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Hate to say it but the children should be removed from the home if there is any indication the parent is unable to raise them properly.
It may suck for a few years but in the long run it would be better for the black community.
If you aren't willing to make the hard decisions then you might as well write of the black community,because they sure havent shown any inclination to fix it themselves.

Who said anything about black people?

Most people who benefit from welfare programs are white.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Hate to say it but the children should be removed from the home if there is any indication the parent is unable to raise them properly.
It may suck for a few years but in the long run it would be better for the black community.
If you aren't willing to make the hard decisions then you might as well write of the black community,because they sure havent shown any inclination to fix it themselves.

Who said anything about black people?

Most people who benefit from welfare programs are white.

Another one who doesnt understand percentages...hmmmm.

 

[hortysir]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

"They" who, sOn?
This shit with you is getting old.

Any links or quotes where someone said this shit?

Surprised you haven't seen the responses you need links for, sOn! Post #15. Standard republican hate filled response you couldn't seem to find. Took me about thirty seconds to find.

Yea, I saw the comment of one anonymous internet poster.
Hardly qualifies as "republicans" or the "GOP", though.
Got anyone that is AnyBody?