Swipe to go to another post.
Wow! I had enough trouble with just three kids. It's these kind of people that are just abusing the system. Can't see how he's getting away with it!
I'm more surprised that he got 15 women to sleep with him!
I hear that!
How does a woman look at that and say to herself,
"Oh, I got to get me some of that!"
Well, maybe if she looks like Honey Boo Boo's mom. Took off a whole lot of weight and she still looks like Mr. Ed.
Those 15 women our hero impregnated couldn't've been much brighter...
Shouldn't there be a law,that after two children that you can't take care of, you should be snipped in the southern regions to prevent this sponging off the taxpayers?
Wouldn't apply here because that would work out to less than 2 kids each.
Per father who is tasked with supporting his kids. The other rule should be that the gov will only pay for two kids at a time.
I believe that was proposed at one time, but who does it really hurt - the children. Easier to have the mom's tubes tied after two kids that she can't take care of, but I think that might be ruled unconstitutional.
How about fixing anyone who keeps reproducing irresponsibly? The nastiness hurled at Chip and Joanna Gaine for having their fifth child - more power to the. At least they are not thrown on the taxpayers to pay for.
If you can care for that many children, fine. It's the ones who can't care for one and then go on to have several more that I'm tired of paying for. Of course, there are situations where someone has three or four kids and some crisis happens and they find themselves in dire need - husband dies, they lose a home, wife can't make enough to keep them together, etc.
You know I am not referring to people who get into trouble not of their making. there were five in my family and I definitely know what hunger is but we were never thrown onto the taxpayers. That was unthinkable to our family. We now have five to seven generations who think welfare is a way of life and the more you have the more you get from the taxpayers.
Have as many children as you (by yourself) can take care of. The others should be offered $1,000 to be fixed.
We agree on that. One of the reasons that we have generational welfare is that it's more lucrative to stay home and collect welfare than it is to work a minimum wage job and, if you work, you aren't eligible. What we need is supplemental assistance for those who are capable of working, but can't earn enough to care for their families. (Yes, you shouldn't have more kids than you can afford.) The government should say you go out and earn as much as you can and if you can't make ends meet, we will give you the difference between what you can earn and what you need, as opposed to giving them everything they need without a work requirement. Naturally, there are people who are elderly, disabled and children who can't work and they are a different story.
Just heard tonight that 1 in 20 adults are on disability. The previous administration felt it was better to get them on disability than to have unemployment look so bad.
I personally know several able-bodied people on disability. Apparently there is a certain doctor who will make sure you make on the
I also know people who do get supplemental support from the government so they will not work extra hours.
How about the middle easterners who have multiple wives and kids? Are they entitled to be paid for everyone in their families?
I, so far from what I know, do agree that delivering food to the homes as opposed to just handing money may be a way to tackle this problem.
I'm sure there are any number of people who are on disability who shouldn't be there. honestly, there isn't one government entitlement that some percentage of folks are not abusing. If the Middle Easterners are not citizens, I don't believe they are entitled to anything at all. As for delivering food, there are costs involved that no one is mentioning. Where will that food be stored? Will there have to be warehouses rented or built? Who will pay for them? How will that food be distributed? Suppose those folks don't have cars to get to a distribution center. Someone will have to deliver the food. That entails costs of transportation, gas, vehicles, depreciation, and people to make those deliveries, etc. I'm leery about how nutritious that food will be. How much waste will there be if the food is fresh? If it's canned, frozen or dried, it will contain a lot of salt. The idea may seem good on its face, but I'm willing to bet that it hasn't been well-thought out.
This is supposed to be a farmer to table program and I'm pretty sure it will be figured out.
A can of tomatoes with some salt in it sounds a lot more nutritious than nothing at all.
Millions and millions of dollars have been wasted with no food going to kids who need it. Look at the school programs that have taken the place of parents. They are already feeding massive amounts kids.
In our area kids get a lunch no matter what the family income is.
Check your figures, it is a growing problem that the multiple wives and kids are getting
help from either the feds, the state, the county or charities. It is becoming a very real problem in some parts of the country.
You may well be right. So far, I haven't seen any specifics about the program, so it's difficult to judge whether it would succeed or not.
What a life...
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2018. Icons by DryIcons.