The single mother of eight children planning a lavish Christmas - all funded by ...

[Matt1970]

Beautiful, then other countries can have benefit drives using images of starving American children. Jesus get real. Letting American kids go hungry is simply not an option. The support for that is limited to the far far right and the uber wealthy.

Reality Check: 12% of our federal budget is used for safety net programs as opposed to 19% to support our optional military adventures. 12 FUCKING PERCENT is too much for you? Really?


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Can't feed um, don't breed um. We will feed the first two, anything beyond that is your responsibility. Don't like it, close your legs or buy condoms.

I am spending over a grand per kid this Christmas

Tell ya what mr humanitarian, why don't you take that $1000 you are going to spend on each of your kids for Christmas and send it to these kids to eat?

Africa today, safety net free....

Or better yet, why not tap into the $1,000,000 in 401K you have and make a real difference? Oh that's right, you are more selfish than anyone here, you just talk a game of wanting to help people.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Hey Vic, can you explain the point he was trying to make? I am certainly not getting it.

He's likely referring to Darwins "Survival of the fittest". Of which you would likely not qualify. Just saying...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hey Vic, can you explain the point he was trying to make? I am certainly not getting it.

Other than his thinking that a dead guy is 'on his side'?

 

[bshole]

Can't feed um, don't breed um. We will feed the first two, anything beyond that is your responsibility. Don't like it, close your legs or buy condoms.

By far the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this forum. Shame on you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He's likely referring to Darwins "Survival of the fittest". Of which you would likely not qualify. Just saying...

Then he either never read Darwin or, he didn't understand what he read.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Then he either never read Darwin or, he didn't understand what he read.

It is my understanding that Darwin intended the phrase to mean ""better designed for an immediate, local environment". Adaptability to ones environment was also a factor.

Or it could just be a figure of speech that everyone here is taking way too seriously...

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

By far the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this forum. Shame on you.

Yes. Personal responsibility is most certainly a disgusting term to most progressives...

 

[SlowSpyder]

So it's the punish the kids strategy. Ok, you answered the question.

I don't think it is a terrible idea to cap benefits at a reasonable level. I don't want to see any kids starve or go without basic healthcare, they are not to blame. But at some point things stopped being a safety net and started becoming incentive to not even try and provide for one's self. I don't believe this is all the fault of those who aren't working, far from it. Corporate greed is also to blame, quite possibly even more so than those who are living off the state. But I think we've passed the point where it is reasonable to expect those who try and make some smarter choices and do want to work to carry ever more burden due to those who do not wish to put in the effort to try and provide for themselves and family.

 

[Matt1970]

By far the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this forum. Shame on you.

I see you ignored the rest of my post. The real shame is on you Mr. millionaire. And you mean people actually waiting till they can afford kids before having them is disgusting to you? I don't see you donating any of your small fortune to those who could use it.

 

[justoh]

By far the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this forum. Shame on you.

What a meanie. right? I haven't read all of his posts, obviously; after all, he has been here all this month, but you may be right.

 

[yllus]

I don't think it is a terrible idea to cap benefits at a reasonable level. I don't want to see any kids starve or go without basic healthcare, they are not to blame. But at some point things stopped being a safety net and started becoming incentive to not even try and provide for one's self. I don't believe this is all the fault of those who aren't working, far from it. Corporate greed is also to blame, quite possibly even more so than those who are living off the state. But I think we've passed the point where it is reasonable to expect those who try and make some smarter choices and do want to work to carry ever more burden due to those who do not wish to put in the effort to try and provide for themselves and family.

I thought the welfare reform bill to cut people off after 5 years was sensible (TANF I think).

 

[Nebor]

Ok, so we have a couple , 'let them starve', and now, one 'state seizure of the children'. Will there be work camps to house the children in or will they simply be farmed out for adoption?

Farmed out for adoption. There are plenty of people who want to adopt kids because they can't have their own. The state should be providing every pregnant woman with prenatal care in the interests of the child. That will also allow the state the build a roster of who is pregnant. Make it well known that if you can't prove sufficient ability to support the child upon it's birth, it will be seized at the hospital and given to a deserving family. Use the records from the prenatal program to track down and seize the children that will inevitably be born outside of the hospital in an effort to avoid the system.

Assistance would still exist for "pre-existing" children. That is to say, if a family falls on hard times, they shouldn't have their children taken away. If, after falling on hard times, they have additional children, and are unable to prove ability to support at the hospital, those children should be seized.

 

[Nebor]

By far the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this forum. Shame on you.

Personal responsibility disgusts you?

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, however I realize that not everyone is, and not every can handle it. For that reason, I am and have always been a "big government" authoritarian. If people are unable to unwilling to properly manage their own lives, to include feeding themselves & their children, then the government should do it for them in the manner most efficient and expedient to the state.

 

[WelshBloke]

Farmed out for adoption. There are plenty of people who want to adopt kids because they can't have their own. The state should be providing every pregnant woman with prenatal care in the interests of the child. That will also allow the state the build a roster of who is pregnant. Make it well known that if you can't prove sufficient ability to support the child upon it's birth, it will be seized at the hospital and given to a deserving family. Use the records from the prenatal program to track down and seize the children that will inevitably be born outside of the hospital in an effort to avoid the system.

Assistance would still exist for "pre-existing" children. That is to say, if a family falls on hard times, they shouldn't have their children taken away. If, after falling on hard times, they have additional children, and are unable to prove ability to support at the hospital, those children should be seized.

I'm waiting for the people that were previously in agreement with your position to suddenly "ABORT!!! BAIL BAIL BAIL. ABANDON THREAD!!!" after that post.

 

[Nebor]

I'm waiting for the people that were previously in agreement with your position to suddenly "ABORT!!! BAIL BAIL BAIL. ABANDON THREAD!!!" after that post.

I think everyone in the thread agrees that the children are the most important asset being considered in these situations. The state has a vested interest in children growing up to be productive members of society that perpetuate the nation state. What we don't want is them to be born with preventable birth defects, or grow up malnourished, mistreated, uneducated OR to be unproductive. I think everyone pretty much agrees on that point too. So then the question becomes: What's the best way to ensure that the nation's children grow into what we collectively need them to be? Since the survival of the state itself lies at stake, the state should have unilateral authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure the well-being of the child in order to ensure that said child grows up to be a productive member of society.

Leaving the child under the care of someone who is not a productive member of society, but instead a drain on society is obviously not conducive to the child's proper upbringing and outcome.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think everyone in the thread agrees that the children are the most important asset being considered in these situations. The state has a vested interest in children growing up to be productive members of society that perpetuate the nation state. What we don't want is them to be born with preventable birth defects, or grow up malnourished, mistreated, uneducated OR to be unproductive. I think everyone pretty much agrees on that point too. So then the question becomes: What's the best way to ensure that the nation's children grow into what we collectively need them to be? Since the survival of the state itself lies at stake, the state should have unilateral authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure the well-being of the child in order to ensure that said child grows up to be a productive member of society.

Leaving the child under the care of someone who is not a productive member of society, but instead a drain on society is obviously not conducive to the child's proper upbringing and outcome.

Not sure if D: or :awe:

 

[bshole]

What a meanie. right? I haven't read all of his posts, obviously; after all, he has been here all this month, but you may be right.

Matt spends alot of his posts attacking the middle class which annoys the crap out of me. When he descends into attacking the most helpless and neediest in America, that is just too much for me to bear without response. If we don't stand up for America's most vunerable, people like Matt will attack them and throw them to the wolves.

 

[Matt1970]

Matt spends alot of his posts attacking the middle class which annoys the crap out of me. When he descends into attacking the most helpless and neediest in America, that is just too much for me to bear without response. If we don't stand up for America's most vunerable, people like Matt will attack them and throw them to the wolves.

No pal, I attack you because you making $150K/year, have over $1 Million in assets, think you are middle class and have declared war on the rich. You have declared them your sworn enemy. I have pointed that out numerous times and THAT annoys you.