[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] well there are some charities for that. but relying on the government to use other peoples money is just stupid. how is my last point stupid? if the parents actually cared about their kids then they wouldnt have them when they cant even support themselvesmingmao3046
If charity could provide for people by itself, then we wouldn't need welfare programs. But the reality is that charities by themselves are no substitute for government welfare programs. There is simply too much need. I'd actually say that it's more stupid to rely on charity, which does not have the same capabilities as government.
As for the bolded section, this is a really sh!tty way of determining if a parent "cares" for their kids. Some people makes mistakes and have babies when they can't afford it, some people lack the education to avoid pregnancies, sometimes families that could afford their children are hit by financial circumstances. None of these things mean that they don't care about their kids. You are not in any position to judge if they care about their kids or not.
There are plenty of charities and none of them are bankrupt. we have too many relying on the government. Yes it is. "lack the education to avoid pregnancy" wtf? your telling me people have never heard of "condom"? honestly? and im not talking about a family who might go on unemployment for a few months because their dad lost the job he had for years and years. Im talking about the baby momma's who are on welfare for literally the full 18 years that they have children. Of course there are plenty of charities. That does that mean they can take on the burden that would befall them if they had to substitute for government welfare programs.
I'm not saying that they've never heard of a condom, but it is clear that less educated people tend to make less money and tend to make more babies.
Your use of the word "baby's mommas" really dimishes your credibility, but if she needs the welfare for as long as it takes her to raise her children, she is going to do what she needs to do (keep taking welfare) to keep her household alfoat and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. You gotta do what you gotta do. If she refused money that her children needed because of some ideology about not taking handouts, I would find that to be grossly irresponsible.
If you want to make people less dependent on welfare, finding ways to increase opportunities for the poor is more constructive than simply pulling the rug from under their feet.
Log in to comment