On 12/12/2013 6:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/12/13, 5:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/12/13, 1:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/12/13, 11:44 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 12 December 2013 10:48:30 UTC-4, John H. wrote:

snip...

*Those* are the poor. How many of those are getting food stamps,
welfare checks, free health care,

cell phones, etc.?

snip...

John H. -- Hope you're NOT having a great day!


Y'all give free cellphones to the poor??
Very generous of you, Johnny Mop.


Like so many conservatives who really don't give a ****, Herring and a
few others here think "poor" people only live in countries other
than the
United States. It's ok with them if little kids in the United
States have
to live in crowded shelters. After all, they say, it's better than
having
to live in a cardboard box. When the Pope calls out for a kinder,
gentler
society, they think he is excluding the United States, or that they
have
no need to pay attention because, after all, they aren't "papists."

We really need to find a cure for "religion."




How come those kids living in shelters and on welfare have parents that
dropped out of school, to lazy to get up in the morning and go
compete with
an illegal that seems to be able to get a job, etc. maybe we ought
to take
care of the kid, and cut the nuts off the dad, and tie the tubes of the
women after a couple kids while on welfare and unmarried. Would
probably
do more for society than the War on Poverty that has been going
since LBJ,
cost more than Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan together, and we have
lost
the WOP. What is your cure for poverty? And I see churches doing a
lot
more for the poor, than any group of atheists!



Congrats, Bilious, on yet another wonderful right-wing rant, this time
one that ignores the plight of the kids so you can go after their
parents. How very conservatrasher of you. After all, the kids created
their problem by being born, right?





No, we created the problem by making it easy to have a lot of kids and
not
care for them! And you reading comprehension still sucks. I pointed out
early on, we need to take care of the kids. But remove the problem
parents
from becoming parents over and over.



By what means, Bilious? Involuntary sterilization, like the Germans did
to the Jews and the Gypsies in the late 1930s and 1940s? I don't think
that will go over big here.

Perhaps a better approach might be to destigmatize sexuality, and start
teaching about "the birds and the bees" in our public schools starting
in, say, the 4th grade and continuing through high school, and also, to
sexually active kids and adults, making condoms and other forms of birth
control readily available at little or no charge. It's significantly
less expensive to give a young couple a pack of condoms or a packet of
pills than it is to support yet another baby. And of course, the morning
after pill and abortion on demand will also help keep down the numbers
of unsupported kids.





I don't think sex education is what Bill is talking about.

States that have traditional welfare payment policies base the amount of
welfare received on the number of children in the household. There's a
financial *incentive* to have more kids in many cases.

About 23 states have implemented "welfare caps" whereby someone
currently receiving welfare benefits for one or more kids will *not*
receive additional amounts for having another one. Welfare caps remove
the financial incentive to have more babies.

These are not young, inexperienced people who need sex education, access
to birth control or morning after pills. They know exactly what they
are doing including knowing where babies and welfare checks come from.