100 
-
-
Poverty is relative. $10k a year would be a lot for many college students (over here at least), while it would be nothing at all for a family.
I live quite comfortably spending about $600 a month total, and saving all my other income. Not because I need to or even want to, but because I just don't have any other use for it. So, for me, $7200 a year would not be poverty in any way./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
So it's up for me and the rest of the tax payers to take care of them? As long as the government continues to reward irresponsibility, people will continue to see it as being paid for being irresponsible.Originally posted by Centurion
So..what is your point? These children still exist no matter where they came from.
If you're truly concerned about the children, then shouldn't you be working on making sure more aren't put in that position? Birth control ain't just for rich folks, ya know.
Comment
-
So, basically, you want to punish the children for their parents' mistakes to set an example?Originally posted by Peaches
So it's up for me and the rest of the tax payers to take care of them? As long as the government continues to reward irresponsibility, people will continue to see it as being paid for being irresponsible.
/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
I was thinking the exact same thing ;)Originally posted by NBDesign
sounds like a bad tobacco habbit more than poverty lol...
DBW: You should look into packing your own cigarettes. Way cheaper and it'll keep you from digging for butts in the ashtray. I've been there.Comment
-
That is an understatement. Add around another 3 - 5% to that since the Census Bureau already know they are working on the basis of a model first created in the 50's and updated in 1960. The reason their model has not been updated.. well.. ya can guess - another political hot potato.34.6 Million Americans Living In Poverty
This is kinda evidenced by Centurion's post:
Sorry.. but $8900 earnings in the US is more than offensive coming from the alledged "leader of the civilized world".For ONE person in 2003, you are considered "poor" if your annual earnings are UNDER $8,980 a year.
And yea.. there are plenty people in the US in a genuine state of poverty - not just "poverty by my standards".
It is a pity that some don't have the first clue about poverty either in the own countries or in countries where poverty is something you could not even bring to dream of.
There are currently children dying of starvation in countries within a flying distance of 1 - 2 hours of the US border. This is not Africa with millions dying each year while assholes like us discuss "poverty" - the mere though of that tis kinda embarassing and offensive.
Peace out... and may you never experience real poverty.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Peaches would never want to punish the children.Originally posted by punkworld
So, basically, you want to punish the children for their parents' mistakes to set an example?
But you can set standards that will discourage the abuse from continuing - for example, tell the welfare folks that if they have any more children while they're on welfare, their benefits will NOT increase. Or putting them on mandatory birth control shots, something like that.
As it is right now the *only* incentive is to stay on welfare and keep having more children to get a bigger check. That needs to change.Comment
-
Sterlize them... people who cannot take care of themselves should not be having children.Originally posted by Carrie
Peaches would never want to punish the children.
But you can set standards that will discourage the abuse from continuing - for example, tell the welfare folks that if they have any more children while they're on welfare, their benefits will NOT increase. Or putting them on mandatory birth control shots, something like that.
As it is right now the *only* incentive is to stay on welfare and keep having more children to get a bigger check. That needs to change.
Personally, I am too greedy to have kids... Too much i want and have not gotten yet and with a kid there is a good chance that I may never get them.
That is why I choose not to have any.Comment
-
Your first example is punishing the children, who will grow up in poverty.Originally posted by Carrie
Peaches would never want to punish the children.
But you can set standards that will discourage the abuse from continuing - for example, tell the welfare folks that if they have any more children while they're on welfare, their benefits will NOT increase. Or putting them on mandatory birth control shots, something like that.
As it is right now the *only* incentive is to stay on welfare and keep having more children to get a bigger check. That needs to change.
Your second example, on the other hand, goes even further, violating basic human rights.
Why do people keep thinking there has to be a solution? Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no solution. There is no magic pill which will make everything better. It's not about solving a problem, it's about damage control./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
I used to think that, too. I never wanted children. Even when I was a pre-pubescent girl surrounded by friends who dreamed of growing up, getting married and having kids... I was dreaming of living in a high-rise with an incredible view of the city and a concierge at the door.
I guess my biological clock kicked in. Huff. Why can't we have those things removed?
(Edited to add that this was responding to NB saying he was too greedy to have kids.)Comment
-
And while we're at it, let's execute the homeless and send all dissidents to re-education camps.Originally posted by NBDesign
Sterlize them... people who cannot take care of themselves should not be having children.
/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Well, there won't be as long as we keep handing them checks and basically paying them for having children.Originally posted by punkworld
Why do people keep thinking there has to be a solution? Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no solution. There is no magic pill which will make everything better.
The birth control - those people are coming to the gov't for total support and they are asked of nothing in return.
When you get a job that pays you, things are expected of you. Show up on time, do your job, be responsible. There are sacrifices you have to make in order to receive your paycheck.
What is so wrong with asking the welfare recipients to focus on using it as a hand up rather than a handout?Comment
-
noooooo!Originally posted by Carrie
but then again I don't fill my fridge with frozen pizzas, beerwe'll miss you our friend. RIPComment
-
punkworld:
Some need to first go and get an educationAnd while we're at it, let's execute the homeless and send all dissidents to re-education camps. I ain't refering to those who "cannot take care of themselves".
Tis amusing when the Third Reich is brought up to date - but sad shit
XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Originally posted by punkworld
And while we're at it, let's execute the homeless and send all dissidents to re-education camps.
Comment
-
There's a big difference between expecting people to do stuff (e.g. work) and forcing them to take medication which potentially can have very large effects on their bodies.Originally posted by Carrie
Well, there won't be as long as we keep handing them checks and basically paying them for having children.
The birth control - those people are coming to the gov't for total support and they are asked of nothing in return.
When you get a job that pays you, things are expected of you. Show up on time, do your job, be responsible. There are sacrifices you have to make in order to receive your paycheck.
What is so wrong with asking the welfare recipients to focus on using it as a hand up rather than a handout?
Birth control medication can lead to trombosis and subsequent death, doesn't happen often, but it does happen. The lawsuits would cost more than the handouts.
And aside from that, what will you do if they refuse? Let their children starve?/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Newsflash - these kids are BORN into poverty. These parents are, quite literally, child abusers. If you cannot afford to feed, cloth, educate and put a roof over a child's head, then you are abusing a child by having one and forcing it to live in that situation.Originally posted by punkworld
Your first example is punishing the children, who will grow up in poverty.
Your second example, on the other hand, goes even further, violating basic human rights.
Why do people keep thinking there has to be a solution? Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no solution. There is no magic pill which will make everything better. It's not about solving a problem, it's about damage control.
Personally, I don't like my tax dollars going to support child abusers. Why do we continue to allow these children to be abused? There are hundreds, even thousands of people that would love to adopt a baby, but instead we allow that child to be brought up with 6 other children in a 2 bedroom government housing facility where there's never enough food, they don't get any entertainment or attention except the TV, they're cold because they don't have warm clothes and their sick because their mother (the father is rarely around) doesn't want to be bothered to take them to the doctor (which is free).
And then we sit back and say "Wow - why are there so many people living in poverty? Why is crime so bad? Why are gangs so popular? Why are drug dealers worshiped? Why are these kids failing in school?"
I spend a lot of time volunteering with these kids. 99/100 the parents are CRAP and unfortunately, most of the kids are headed that way. But let's make sure we give them MORE money so the parents can buy $20 worth of meat with their food stamps and then sell it for $10 worth of crack.
If I ruled the country, if you already had a kid and you were on welfare, you don't get squat until you got your Depo-provera shot. Yes, that's harsh, but I know I was struggling after my ex-husband took off and I while I would have loved to have had a house full of kids, I knew I couldn't afford it - and I wasn't on welfare - never got a dime from the government. It's NOT that tough a concept to understand. Instead, we coddle them and make it literally profitable for the parent to have a child when they're on welfare. Bizarre, IMHO.
OK, I'm going to be now - flame on about how I don't care about the "children", when in reality, that's who I'm trying to protect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peaches
Newsflash - these kids are BORN into poverty. These parents are, quite literally, child abusers. If you cannot afford to feed, cloth, educate and put a roof over a child's head, then you are abusing a child by having one and forcing it to live in that situation.
Personally, I don't like my tax dollars going to support child abusers. Why do we continue to allow these children to be abused? There are hundreds, even thousands of people that would love to adopt a baby, but instead we allow that child to be brought up with 6 other children in a 2 bedroom government housing facility where there's never enough food, they don't get any entertainment or attention except the TV, they're cold because they don't have warm clothes and their sick because their mother (the father is rarely around) doesn't want to be bothered to take them to the doctor (which is free).
And then we sit back and say "Wow - why are there so many people living in poverty? Why is crime so bad? Why are gangs so popular? Why are drug dealers worshiped? Why are these kids failing in school?"
I spend a lot of time volunteering with these kids. 99/100 the parents are CRAP and unfortunately, most of the kids are headed that way. But let's make sure we give them MORE money so the parents can buy $20 worth of meat with their food stamps and then sell it for $10 worth of crack.
If I ruled the country, if you already had a kid and you were on welfare, you don't get squat until you got your Depo-provera shot. Yes, that's harsh, but I know I was struggling after my ex-husband took off and I while I would have loved to have had a house full of kids, I knew I couldn't afford it - and I wasn't on welfare - never got a dime from the government. It's NOT that tough a concept to understand. Instead, we coddle them and make it literally profitable for the parent to have a child when they're on welfare. Bizarre, IMHO.
OK, I'm going to be now - flame on about how I don't care about the "children", when in reality, that's who I'm trying to protect.
So you are going to protect the children by letting them starve?
Or are you, like you suggested, going to take children away from their parents if those happen to lose their job and may need to depend on society for a while?/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
If the parents are having kids to collect bigger welfare checks... yes... if you are needing a little hep till you get back on your feet no.Originally posted by punkworld
So you are going to protect the children by letting them starve?
Or are you, like you suggested, going to take children away from their parents if those happen to lose their job and may need to depend on society for a while?
There are people out there that abuse the system.. these are the people that need to be stopped...
Afterall... it's all our tax dollars that support these crack head deadbeats...
Remember.. there is a big difference between needing a helping hand and being a fuck up.Comment
-
Peaches:
Hearing ya Peaches and pretty much agree.
However, the number of abusers of a welfare system in any country just does not add up to the millions living and dying in a state of poverty.
We always moan about welfare abusers, - they, like flies, will always be there. The problem is MUCH bigger than any of that.
Peace outXXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
<small>(I am assuming you're talking about the taking children away bit)</small>Originally posted by NBDesign
If the parents are having kids to collect bigger welfare checks... yes... if you are needing a little hep till you get back on your feet no.
There are people out there that abuse the system.. these are the people that need to be stopped...
Afterall... it's all our tax dollars that support these crack head deadbeats...
Remember.. there is a big difference between needing a helping hand and being a fuck up.
How will you distinguish the good ones from the bad ones? Where will you draw the line?
And, furthermore, is it the state's right to take away the children of someone who is considered a "fuckup" by some subjective standard?/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Originally posted by punkworld
<small>(I am assuming you're talking about the taking children away bit)</small>
How will you distinguish the good ones from the bad ones? Where will you draw the line?
The ones who refuse to work, stay on drugs and keep having children knowing they cannot afford the ones they already have.
They do it all the time... I know people who have had to fight long court battles to get their children back after someone made a phone call claiming child abuse... there was no child abuse...And, furthermore, is it the state's right to take away the children of someone who is considered a "fuckup" by some subjective standard?
Sorry, I agree with peaches... if you cannot take care of yourself and you keep having child after child knowing you cannot properly take care of them then it is child abuse and these children should be place into better homes and given a chance at a better life.
Comment
-
Sounds really familiar. I grew up with a dad making $6 an hour or less all the time, and a mom on $600 a month disability. We lived in a trailer so run down that opossums crawled in through the holes in the floor sometimes. (no joke) My dad drove a car that was literally falling apart. We ate ramen noodles and pinto beans and cornbread alot. I wore yard sale clothes to school and got laughed at. I didn't get Teddy Ruxpin or Cabbage Patch Kids or Collecovision for Christmas like other kids at school, but I got a few things. They tried. But I'm really glad my kids don't have to live like that. They get love AND a few nice things now and then.Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Dude, I'm fucking 20, not 38. I was living (with my 2 little brothers, one a baby at the time) on my moms income of $7.50 an hour just 5-7 years ago. What's $7.50 hourly a year? Around $15k, that's BEFORE taxes.
We didn't have a mortgage. We lived in a trailer. Didn't have two car payments which total $700 monthly. We had one car payment, which was between $100-200, I don't know the specifics. Electric was probably around $70 weekly. Food was around $75, my mom is the best bargain shopper I've ever seen.
We still had birthdays. Still had Christmas. Still had special treats every now and then.
Again, $21k is not poverty. I think some of you people really need to live without money to see how things really work. What a joke...
But I'm also glad I did, in a way. My parents loved me, and as a family, we had alot of good times that I cherish to this day. I may have grown up in poverty, but we were certainly rich in love. I'm glad I wasn't taken away from them.
Unfortunately alot of kids living in poverty DON"T have that kind of life. Alot either have parents so depressed that all they want to do is drink themselves into oblivion or stay high all the time. Or they are so lonely they want to party all the time. Or they just spend so many hours working trying to make ends meet that they just want to collapse into bed when they DO finally get home. That's reaaly sad.
Comment
-
NBDesign, do you have a mortgage? From all your posts here (GFY.com) you sound like a looser.
A home is what parents create with money or not. It is called good parenting. At your age, rather then spending money on porn, IMO you should spend on it on a good doctor.
Comment
-
You make it sound so simple. Well, it isn't. Not many "refuse" to work and not many will admit to doing drugs. Furthermore, what do you consider "keep having children"? Do children conceived while a woman still had a partner with a job count? Does it count if the condom tears?Originally posted by NBDesign
The ones who refuse to work, stay on drugs and keep having children knowing they cannot afford the ones they already have.
What you are basically suggesting is that you first examine every part of someone's life. Since people do lie, that requires several full-time workers per person being examined. And, ofcourse, they need to be on the case for at least a year, since you don't want to risk catching someone at a bad time in their life.
"placed into better homes and given a chance at a better life" sounds so nice... Ofcourse, reality isn't half as nice. You will not just be taking away babies, but also older children and teens, who won't be as easy to handle and who stand very little chance of being successfully adopted. Apart from the obvious emotional trauma many of them will sustain, it is also a well-known fact that children who are placed into homes generally don't do so well in society. Well, unless ofcourse you want to consider things like suicide and crime signs of doing well in society.Originally posted by NBDesign
They do it all the time... I know people who have had to fight long court battles to get their children back after someone made a phone call claiming child abuse... there was no child abuse...
Sorry, I agree with peaches... if you cannot take care of yourself and you keep having child after child knowing you cannot properly take care of them then it is child abuse and these children should be place into better homes and given a chance at a better life.
Funny, how so many people think they have all the answers, despite the fact that thousands of experts haven't found any viable solutions so far.../(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Punkworld it isn't that the experts haven't found a solution, it's that a workable solution hasn't been implemented.
You're right - you'd have to judge each case individually. That's being done now. But you'd also have to treat each case individually. That *isn't* being done.
The reason the system doesn't work is because it has a blanket approach to the multitude of variations in the problem. That's not the way to solve it.
Right now we're treating the crack moms having babies for checks the same as we're treating the divorced moms trying to get back on their feet. Those are two completely different situations, and they should be handled differently.
The system we've got just isn't set up to do that.
Btw I disagree that it would take 4 people per case - it only takes one person to spot a lie; check arms, armpits, between the fingers and toes for tracks, and administer a piss test.
Science has come a long way in helping us determine who's lying to us and who isn't.
Comment
-
Here is something to think about. I had two children with my ex. He turned out to be a bum that only worked a few months out of the year, drank alot, stayed out partying all hours, etc. He changed for the worse after we had kids. Before we had kids, he seemed nice, he worked, he spent time with me... I thought having kids with him would be fine. I was wrong.
We had moved into a trailer WAAAAAY the hell out in BFE. We split up. He left. Here was my situation:
I had no car.
I had no money.
I had nothing to pawn to GET money.
I had 2 kids.
There was no public transportation.
The nearest place of POSSIBLE employment was 15+ miles away.
A taxi would have cost me at LEAST $30 a day to get the kids to and from daycare and to get me to and from work. That's $150 a week IF I only worked 5 days.
Daycare would have been around $100+ per week for 2 kids.
At $6 per hour, 40 hours per week, that would have been $240 a week BEFORE taxes. But wait! Just the taxi and daycare were $250 a week! So I'm already in the hole $10 and I've bought no food, no diapers, paid no rent...
Seems hopeless.
Luckily I met my current husband before I got evicted and things worked out. But for how many women does it not?
Comment
-
you could live on rice, beans, cheap cheese, tap water for about $250 a month for a family of four, but that sounds like poverty to me. if you add in rent - here a 1 bedroom apt in a slum goes for $700 maybe... i just checked the recycler and a few other listings - even in a slum, ya need to pay more. then you have utilities - at least $50 a month, even if you leave the lights off most of the time and have a special phone rate for the poor. no tv at that rate or you have to buy it and your power goes up.
and then you'll need things like soap, toothbrushes, detergent, clothes. but wait! how will you improve your lot without decent clothes and transportation? that wasn't in my list...
in l.a. we have lots of homeless people and homeless families. a family here lives in abject poverty for $15,000 a year. of course, poor people are often uneducated, which seems to mean more kids crammed in that 1 bedroom apt - so that $15,000 won't even cover bare essentials.
in my own part of the world here, i see a LOT of people living a life that is way below what most of us were taught to believe is just normal.Got Gay and For Women Traffic?
Comment
-
It's never hopeless - people just get stuck in a rut and can't think of a way out. This is the type of situation welfare was made for - to give you a hand up to get back onto your feet.Originally posted by tootie
Seems hopeless.
Before that though, there are options - family first and foremost. Parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles... there are friends. There are churches. In many places, there are shelters.
But for the majority of people, *pride* won't allow them to ask those people for help. Welfare should be their *last* option.
For the ones that don't have those options, welfare is there. That's what it was supposed to be when JFK thought it up - a last resort, not a first resort.Comment
-
Basschick, I can get a 3br apartment here in a pretty nice complex with a gym and a pool for $650/mo. LA prices are just outrageous.
Why don't these folks take their next $700 for rent and instead buy everyone a Greyhound ticket and go somewhere else where it would be easier to get ahead?Comment
-
Originally posted by SureFire
NBDesign, do you have a mortgage? From all your posts here (GFY.com) you sound like a looser.
A home is what parents create with money or not. It is called good parenting. At your age, rather then spending money on porn, IMO you should spend on it on a good doctor.
I guess if you read my post like you say... you would see that yes I do have a mortgage, have 2 cars, 7 pets and a woman who loves me... looser... ok if that is a looser then yes, I guess I am.
BTW... I make money on porn... I don't spend it on porn.. never have, never will. Try again.Comment
-
Btw NB I like your sig button - it's different.Comment
-
Hehe - don't worry Quiet, I know you can afford the requisite bachelor menu and then some. ;)Originally posted by quiet
noooooo!Comment
-
It is funny how so many use these euphemisms to obscure their elitist and fascist attiutdes.
Why is poverty always about some crackhead?
Why is poverty always about gangbanging?
Why is poverty always about the ghetto?
Why is poverty always about laziness?
These are stereotypes that are always linked to one group in this country. Why does a discussion about poverty always resort to these old and tired stereotypes?
Tells me a lot about the true motivation behind these so-called arguments against helping those in poverty.
My basic attitude is, if you have the resources to help, then help. If you do not, help yourself first, then help others.
No judgment. No self-righteousness.
Why would you have any other attitude?Comment
-
Agreed.. there is no simple solution... and to do anything that I suggested would be a violation of someone's civil rights...Originally posted by punkworld
"placed into better homes and given a chance at a better life" sounds so nice... Ofcourse, reality isn't half as nice. You will not just be taking away babies, but also older children and teens, who won't be as easy to handle and who stand very little chance of being successfully adopted. Apart from the obvious emotional trauma many of them will sustain, it is also a well-known fact that children who are placed into homes generally don't do so well in society. Well, unless ofcourse you want to consider things like suicide and crime signs of doing well in society.
Funny, how so many people think they have all the answers, despite the fact that thousands of experts haven't found any viable solutions so far...
However can we at least agree that there are people out there that abuse the system?
These are the ones that I am talking about NOT someone down on their luck. There is a big difference... BIG difference.
I have heard some of these women BRAG about how hey are abusing the system... stating that if they have another kid they can get more $$ every month...
It's sad... but it does happen...
Hell... people abuse everything... in every aspect of life... (before this gets mis-read, NO NOT EVERYONE ABUSES THE SYSEM).. hell... look at all the scammers here on this board or the number of people on this board who have openly admited to abusing things to get what they wanted.
My suggestions are general... and not an actual solution.... besides... who the fuck am I to change the world... I'm just happy for my little piece of it...Comment
-
Originally posted by basschick
you could live on rice, beans, cheap cheese, tap water for about $250 a month for a family of four, but that sounds like poverty to me. if you add in rent - here a 1 bedroom apt in a slum goes for $700 maybe... i just checked the recycler and a few other listings - even in a slum, ya need to pay more. then you have utilities - at least $50 a month, even if you leave the lights off most of the time and have a special phone rate for the poor. no tv at that rate or you have to buy it and your power goes up.
and then you'll need things like soap, toothbrushes, detergent, clothes. but wait! how will you improve your lot without decent clothes and transportation? that wasn't in my list...
in l.a. we have lots of homeless people and homeless families. a family here lives in abject poverty for $15,000 a year. of course, poor people are often uneducated, which seems to mean more kids crammed in that 1 bedroom apt - so that $15,000 won't even cover bare essentials.
in my own part of the world here, i see a LOT of people living a life that is way below what most of us were taught to believe is just normal.
Comment
-
Your own assumption of attitudes causes you to misread what people are saying.Originally posted by woodsix
It is funny how so many use these euphemisms to obscure their elitist and fascist attiutdes.
Why is poverty always about some crackhead?
Why is poverty always about gangbanging?
Why is poverty always about the ghetto?
Why is poverty always about laziness?
These are stereotypes that are always linked to one group in this country. Why does a discussion about poverty always resort to these old and tired stereotypes?
Tells me a lot about the true motivation behind these so-called arguments against helping those in poverty.
My basic attitude is, if you have the resources to help, then help. If you do not, help yourself first, then help others.
No judgment. No self-righteousness.
Why would you have any other attitude?
No one here is claiming that poverty is about the things you listed - they're saying those people are the ones abusing the welfare system.
And the reason you'd have any other attitude is because there is already a system in place to help these people, paid for with our money, and it is a broken, corrupt system that needs overhauling. So it is a valid attitude to take that we need to fix the system, and to discuss how to do that.Comment
-
because they are all about 99% true... not stereotype at all... I mean there are exceptions to every rule...Originally posted by woodsix
It is funny how so many use these euphemisms to obscure their elitist and fascist attiutdes.
Why is poverty always about some crackhead?
Why is poverty always about gangbanging?
Why is poverty always about the ghetto?
Why is poverty always about laziness?
These are stereotypes that are always linked to one group in this country. Why does a discussion about poverty always resort to these old and tired stereotypes?
I do agree with take care of your self first... then of you can help another.
Last edited by NBDesign; 09-26-2003, 06:52 PM.Comment
-
Is this where you say: "You should wait till you're married before you have sex?"Originally posted by Peaches
So it's up for me and the rest of the tax payers to take care of them? As long as the government continues to reward irresponsibility, people will continue to see it as being paid for being irresponsible.
If you're truly concerned about the children, then shouldn't you be working on making sure more aren't put in that position? Birth control ain't just for rich folks, ya know.
Cuz, it just ain't in human nature to refrain from sex until married. So no matter what you say, even the best intentioned women will get pregnant.
Plus..there is no birth control that is 100% effective.
Comment
-
Because you can always become an internet model...or a ho!Originally posted by Carrie
It's never hopeless - people just get stuck in a rut and can't think of a way out. This is the type of situation welfare was made for - to give you a hand up to get back onto your feet.
Comment
-
So simple to say something like that when you are asking people to leave the area they know and at least feel somewhat comfortable in that they have places to go like shelters etc. in case of emergency..and geez...maybe even friends!Originally posted by Carrie
Basschick, I can get a 3br apartment here in a pretty nice complex with a gym and a pool for $650/mo. LA prices are just outrageous.
Why don't these folks take their next $700 for rent and instead buy everyone a Greyhound ticket and go somewhere else where it would be easier to get ahead?
It's not always easy to say "I'll just take my kids and move to bumfuck tenn where the price of living is much lower so I can afford an apt!". It's a fuckin' scary world and I can see why people are not all that thrilled to move into some town or rural area they have never been to before!Comment
-
Originally posted by NBDesign
Agreed.. there is no simple solution... and to do anything that I suggested would be a violation of someone's civil rights...
However can we at least agree that there are people out there that abuse the system?
These are the ones that I am talking about NOT someone down on their luck. There is a big difference... BIG difference.
I have heard some of these women BRAG about how hey are abusing the system... stating that if they have another kid they can get more $$ every month...
It's sad... but it does happen...
Hell... people abuse everything... in every aspect of life... (before this gets mis-read, NO NOT EVERYONE ABUSES THE SYSEM).. hell... look at all the scammers here on this board or the number of people on this board who have openly admited to abusing things to get what they wanted.
My suggestions are general... and not an actual solution.... besides... who the fuck am I to change the world... I'm just happy for my little piece of it...
NBDesign, at your age I doubt if I would dish out opinions!Comment
-
And you say this why? Why no response to my response to you? Back up your statements or don't make them.Originally posted by SureFire
NBDesign, at your age I doubt if I would dish out opinions!
You will be ignored now...Comment
-
If you liberals would just put YOUR OWN money where your mouth is instead of the money of your betters, you'd see how wasteful it is.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
"your betters"? you mean people better than me? Sorry.. we are all equal.. there is not one person better than another... Just because you ahve more $$ than someone else does not make you a better person...Originally posted by 12clicks
If you liberals would just put YOUR OWN money where your mouth is instead of the money of your betters, you'd see how wasteful it is.
Please explain....Comment
-
It is when the alternative is starvation.Originally posted by Centurion
It's not always easy to say "I'll just take my kids and move to bumfuck tenn where the price of living is much lower so I can afford an apt!".
sadly, our government doesn't give these slugs that type of motivation.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
I'll gladly explain. people who have more, worked harder. go ahead and run with the liberal argunemt that most rich people are born rich, its not true.Originally posted by NBDesign
"your betters"? you mean people better than me? Sorry.. we are all equal.. there is not one person better than another... Just because you ahve more $$ than someone else does not make you a better person...
Please explain....
If you had the backbone to go with your liberal convictions, you'd demand we be taxed by a poll system instead of having the rich pay for your dopey ideas.
oh, and sorry, we aren't all equal.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Originally posted by 12clicks
I'll gladly explain. people who have more, worked harder. go ahead and run with the liberal argunemt that most rich people are born rich, its not true.
If you had the backbone to go with your liberal convictions, you'd demand we be taxed by a poll system instead of having the rich pay for your dopey ideas.
really don't consider myself liberal... but ok... Actualy, I feel that we should all be taxed the same... 20% across the board... No breaks for the wealthy... it does not trickle down... didn't with regan and it's not with bush so...
Ok, you're right... I am better than youoh, and sorry, we aren't all equal.
Comment
-
If you were wealthy, you'd know the breaks don't mean shit.Originally posted by NBDesign
really don't consider myself liberal... but ok... Actualy, I feel that we should all be taxed the same... 20% across the board... No breaks for the wealthy... it does not trickle down... didn't with regan and it's not with bush so...
you want to be fair, make everyone over 21 pay 5k a year in taxes.
As to your misconception on trickle down goes, the top 1% of the wealthiest American's tax money has been trickling down to pay for you since the IRS began.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Do you even know how much welfare someone can get? Where I lived, with 2 kids, they were going to give me $315 a month. My rent was $400 a month in a slum of a trailer. $315 a month won't do anything to help anyone get on their feet. It won't even keep you from eviction, much less support a woman with kids until she can get transportation and get educated.Originally posted by Carrie
It's never hopeless - people just get stuck in a rut and can't think of a way out. This is the type of situation welfare was made for - to give you a hand up to get back onto your feet.
Before that though, there are options - family first and foremost. Parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles... there are friends. There are churches. In many places, there are shelters.
But for the majority of people, *pride* won't allow them to ask those people for help. Welfare should be their *last* option.
For the ones that don't have those options, welfare is there. That's what it was supposed to be when JFK thought it up - a last resort, not a first resort.
My whole family was dirt poor, no one to help. My ex was $10k in arrears to his ex for child support, which I had no idea of until after I had kids. There was no one to help me.
If some kind soul would given me an old klunker of a car I MIGHT have made it. But since car insurance is required by law, even that was doubtful. I'd have been willing to work 2 or 3 jobs to support my kids if I'd had transportation and child care, but then my kids would barely even know who I was.
I'm glad I've made it out, but so many people don't.
Comment
Comment