# Why should the marginally employable have children?



## primroselane (May 10, 2002)

Among New York City children who were overweight, 22 percent were obese, compared with 19.6 percent nationally. 

The numbers were broken down by ZIP code and showed that less-affluent neighborhoods had the most severe problems. In the 2008-9 school year, the highest rates were found in Corona, Queens, where 51 percent of schoolchildren were overweight or obese. That was followed by parts of Harlem, with 48 to 49 percent, and Washington Heights, with 47 percent. 

In contrast, some of the cityâs wealthiest areas had the healthiest children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/nyregion/05obese.html?hpw


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

For the same reasons everyone else has children.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I would guess that in neighborhoods where it's not safe to play outside, children spend a lot of time indoors in front of the TV. 

Sugary processed foods also are cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables. :shrug:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Poor decision making skills manifest themselves in a number of ways. They affect both the economic viability of individuals (and subsequently their offspring), as well as their physical wellbeing. 

As for having children, a case could certainly be made that it would not be a wise choice to have children until a person's economic status is adequate to raise a family. That determination however, is clearly subjective and should be left up to the individuals involved. Having children, to many people, is one of the most basic joys of life and no one else has a right to decide for them if or when they should do so.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Poor decision making skills manifest themselves in a number of ways. They affect both the economic viability of individuals (and subsequently their offspring), as well as their physical wellbeing.
> 
> As for having children, a case could certainly be made that it would not be a wise choice to have children until a person's economic status is adequate to raise a family. That determination however, is clearly subjective and should be left up to the individuals involved. Having children, to many people, is one of the most basic joys of life and no one else has a right to decide for them if or when they should do so.


Here's a surprise, I agree with you.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

It must be because of too many Lemon ices at the Lemon Ice King of Corona. They can play Bocci Ball at the park with the old men.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Eating right costs more than eating unhealthy.Poverty also makes life harder to deal with in all ways.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2010)

wwubben said:


> Eating right costs more than eating unhealthy.


I have never understood this statement. When chicken, most fruit, most vegetables, etc cost less than a dollar a pound, and potato chips cost $3.50 for 12 ounces. Water is free, soft drinks are a dollar plus. I have never understood the concept that its cheaper to eat junk.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

If those people had to foot the entire bill for their kids, starting with prenatal care, and actually paying for the food to feed them full market value for their housing, and the cost of educating them, they would maybe not see having kids as the greatest joy in their lives. They would be too busy chasing a dollar to lie around and pop out siblings at regular intervals and fatten them up ready for school.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

zong said:


> I have never understood this statement. When chicken, most fruit, most vegetables, etc cost less than a dollar a pound, and potato chips cost $3.50 for 12 ounces. Water is free, soft drinks are a dollar plus. I have never understood the concept that its cheaper to eat junk.


Me too. I know someone who can only feed her kids spaghetti and mac and cheese from a box because vegetables are too expensive. She has money to buy smokes (brand name) and coffee. I offered to have DH rototill her a garden patch (not interested, that's too much work). I just cant figure it out.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Or just possibly, some of these people haven't always been poor and they had their kids. Then something bad happened and they had to be on welfare. Why is it that so many people assume that people like being on welfare? Granted there are some that do and make a bad name for all, but don't you think that most would rather have the money to do more for their kids, be able to pay for their own food and healthcare? Yes, I know I have always been very defensive on this issue because of my own situation but to say they shouldn't have kids? That sounds like a 3rd world country or China idea to me. 

There are also those times that birth control just doesn't work. Ask me how I know


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Oh, and sorry forgot to add that it is definitely cheaper to eat from scratch than from a box unless you hit some really good sales or have coupons. Chips have gotten outrageous so we buy the dollar bag of tortilla chips, eat it with homecanned salsa(the kids are getting veggies without even realizing it lol). I used to get everything from a box until I figured out it's cheaper and easy to make them. I have no idea why I ever bought the "mix" to make blueberry muffins when they are so easy to make. Same with pancakes. Cookies are a breeze, and homemade mac n cheese is easy as well. Now if I could just convince DH that Hamburger Helper is not in the food pyramid...luckily it was on sale this week 4/$5 and had a coupon for .75 off of 3.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

zong said:


> I have never understood this statement. When chicken, most fruit, most vegetables, etc cost less than a dollar a pound, and potato chips cost $3.50 for 12 ounces. Water is free, soft drinks are a dollar plus. I have never understood the concept that its cheaper to eat junk.


That was what I was thinking. Fruits and vegetables are always cheaper than potaot chips and junk food, at least around here.
I could never understand when people would say junk food is cheaper than healthy food.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

1) Prices differ greatly from area to area. I haven't seen any meat and few fruits/vegetables for less than a dollar/lb in years. In fact, I don't think I could find any meat locally for less than $2.40/lb.

2) People in the inner city often don't have access to large grocery stores and have to rely on small shops where prices are even higher.

3) Unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean junk food. Some poor folks live on pasta, rice and potatoes because they are cheap. The carb load from those could very well be the source of obesity in poorer communities.


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

Elffriend said:


> 1) Prices differ greatly from area to area. I haven't seen any meat and few fruits/vegetables for less than a dollar/lb in years. In fact, I don't think I could find any meat locally for less than $2.40/lb.
> 
> 2) People in the inner city often don't have access to large grocery stores and have to rely on small shops where prices are even higher.


You have to be a better consumer. I was at our regular grocery store the other day and whole chickens were selling for 77 cents per pound. Sirloin steak was 2.99$ per pound. Sooo,,, bought more chicken then beef. I ended up deboning the chickens, stored the meat, and canned chicken soup from the bones/scrap.

Was also at the local farmer's market. Asparagus was 1$ for a 1lb bundle. Broccoli was 50 cents/pound. Peaches (large) 6 for a dollar. Necturines 4 for a dollar. Bought the peaches and washed off the fuzz to eat faux necturines. Five or six dollars there will buy a week's supply of fresh fruit and vegies.

All this in southern California, not way out in farm country somewhere. Fresh, nutritious whole foods are out there, you just have to make the effort to find them. You can do it!


----------



## jadedhkr (Oct 25, 2004)

> You have to be a better consumer. I was at our regular grocery store the other day and whole chickens were selling for 77 cents per pound. Sirloin steak was 2.99$ per pound. Sooo,,, bought more chicken then beef. I ended up deboning the chickens, stored the meat, and canned chicken soup from the bones/scrap.
> 
> Was also at the local farmer's market. Asparagus was 1$ for a 1lb bundle. Broccoli was 50 cents/pound. Peaches (large) 6 for a dollar. Necturines 4 for a dollar. Bought the peaches and washed off the fuzz to eat faux necturines. Five or six dollars there will buy a week's supply of fresh fruit and vegies.
> 
> All this in southern California, not way out in farm country somewhere. Fresh, nutritious whole foods are out there, you just have to make the effort to find them. You can do it!


Before you make that assumption. Where I live, chicken is never that cheap, ever! I've seen it go on sale for 1.99/lb before. And asparagus is 4.99/lb on sale. Nothing is cheap here though, it is all equally expensive. Our farmer's market is a joke, not much to choose from, but plenty of baked goods. Not everyone has the same options. For us, we do eat from scratch and as healthy as we can, but it is not cheap!

Please don't assume you know what someone has available to them based on your own experience. We live in a vast and very different world.

I would imagine that people eat the junk food because it is easy, not simply because it's cheap.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

ok... lets back the turnip truck up here.

first healthy lifestyles are a learned behavior that have to be supported. If you are living in a concrete jungle hand to mouth, who's going to help you learn much more than survival skills?

cooking from scratch is a skill mostly learned by watching or having great determination and a good cookbook. again, who is going to help or support you when you are on your own.

to clean up the obesity problem in our city dwelling youth - it has to start with the schools. They need to put daily free play recess, gym class daily, real food - not cafeteria versions of McDonalds and Pizza Hut and help the parents become active in their childrens lifes and school.

we need to return to basics and the rest will follow

I have been marginally employed my whole adult life and married to a farmer for 20+years. Yet, I have two healthy successful/active teenagers and a waistline that is almost the same it was when I was in high school


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Poor decision making skills manifest themselves in a number of ways. They affect both the economic viability of individuals (and subsequently their offspring), as well as their physical wellbeing.
> 
> As for having children, a case could certainly be made that it would not be a wise choice to have children until a person's economic status is adequate to raise a family. That determination however, is clearly subjective and should be left up to the individuals involved. *Having children, to many people, is one of the most basic joys of life and no one else has a right to decide for them if or when they should do so*.


That is true. But as far as I am concerned the well being of the children is of more importance than giving people who are not equipped to raise children a basic joy in life. That is just selfish.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

pancho said:


> That was what I was thinking. Fruits and vegetables are always cheaper than potaot chips and junk food, at least around here.
> I could never understand when people would say junk food is cheaper than healthy food.


Not necessarily junk. But a 10 pound bag of potatoes at $3.50 will feed a lot more people than fresh vegetables and fruit, especially out of season. Not to mention the store brand mac and cheese.

Furthermore, people living in small towns and rural areas don;t always have a supermarket available to them, but convenience stores accept food stamps. So getting a quick meal of junk food is more attainable than getting a ride into town.

I am not making excuses .... I find this tragic. And it should start with the parents who need to learn and then teach their kids about nutrition, cooking from scratch and even growing a modest amount of produce themselves.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> That is true. But as far as I am concerned the well being of the children is of more importance than giving people who are not equipped to raise children a basic joy in life. That is just selfish.


So by what authority would you prevent them from having the children? Do you believe that only the wealthy should be allowed to have children? Since you see yourself as "giving" people the basic joy in life, at what income level would you allow them to have it?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

I don't know what the title of the thread has to do with obesity in the inner city, by the way.
And the inner cities are 'urban deserts'. In some cases it can be a three hour bus ride roundtrip to get a fresh veggie. It is not that the people stuck in the inner cities make horrible choices, it is that fresh foods and bulk foods such as bags of rice and flour etc.. are not made avaiblable.
Google 'Urban Desert".. mind boggling how this can be allowed to happen.
The grocery store chains make more money out in the burbs and don't even bother with inner cities.
Think about the food choices available to you if you could only shop at the local gas station type convenience store.
And before you go off on them being lazy for not hopping that long bus ride, think about how they would get it back home again... with kids in tow...


_Healthy options can be hard to find in too many communities. Millions of low-income Americans live in 'food deserts,' neighborhoods that lack convenient access to affordable and healthy food. Instead of supermarkets or grocery stores, these communities often have an abundance of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores. In addition, stores in low-income communities may stock fewer and lower quality healthy foods. When available, the cost of fresh foods in low-income areas can be high. Public transportation to supermarkets is often lacking, and long distances separate home and supermarkets in many rural communities and American Indian reservations. It is hard for residents of these areas--even those fully informed and motivated--to follow the necessary and recommended steps to maintain a healthy weight for themselves and their children. Too often, economic incentives strongly favor unhealthy eating, and accessibility, safety concerns, and convenience can also promote unhealthy outcomes_.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/few-healthy-food-choices-in-urban-food-deserts/


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> So by what authority would you prevent them from having the children? Do you believe that only the wealthy should be allowed to have children? Since you see yourself as "giving" people the basic joy in life, at what income level would you allow them to have it?


I am not saying that at all. Money doesn't make anybody a better parent. But I do believe that people should be mentally and emotionally stable enough to raise children. 

You were the one who brought up the fact that having children is a basic joy of life for many people. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to have children just because they make you happy but not being equipped to raise them is selfish.

I don't know what the answer is. Although I like the method the SPCA uses when people want to adopt an animal.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

I recently read a book called "The China Study". I'm not saying I agreed with everything, but he said the rich and affluent have their own set of diseases to contend with.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

beaglebiz said:


> Me too. I know someone who can only feed her kids spaghetti and mac and cheese from a box because vegetables are too expensive. She has money to buy smokes (brand name) and coffee. I offered to have DH rototill her a garden patch (not interested, that's too much work). *I just cant figure it out.*


I can. She is not equipped to raise children. And she should not have had them. Just because you can reproduce doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

whiskeylivewire said:


> Or just possibly, some of these people haven't always been poor and they had their kids. Then something bad happened and they had to be on welfare. Why is it that so many people assume that people like being on welfare? Granted there are some that do and make a bad name for all, but don't you think that most would rather have the money to do more for their kids, be able to pay for their own food and healthcare? Yes, I know I have always been very defensive on this issue because of my own situation but to say they shouldn't have kids? That sounds like a 3rd world country or China idea to me.
> 
> There are also those times that birth control just doesn't work. Ask me how I know


It doesn't require a lot of money to raise kids successfully. All it takes is mental and emotional stabilization and the spunk to make things happen. Cooking from scratch is a good start .... raising some of your own food is another. There is always a way to grow something .....


----------



## Loquisimo (Nov 14, 2009)

chickenista said:


> I don't know what the title of the thread has to do with obesity in the inner city, by the way.
> And the inner cities are 'urban deserts'. In some cases it can be a three hour bus ride roundtrip to get a fresh veggie. It is not that the people stuck in the inner cities make horrible choices, it is that fresh foods and bulk foods such as bags of rice and flour etc.. are not made avaiblable.
> Google 'Urban Desert".. mind boggling how this can be allowed to happen.
> The grocery store chains make more money out in the burbs and don't even bother with inner cities.
> ...


I know that local govt's here in Sacramento subsidize grocery stores in the worst ghettos because if they didn't there wouldn't BE any grocery stores there. Raleys received tons of tax breaks to build a Food Source, the company's discount grocery arm, in Oak Park. Market Basket and Kings Market in North Sac get tons of subsidies to guarantee they stay in place. Even then the produce is kinda wilted. I know that ghetto blacks will go to such places and pack their grocery carts high with chicken. They freeze it. Elsewhere, where the local govts are corrupt or broke, the food desert is the rule. The only food choices those people have are fast food and convenience stores. For them, a bag of chips and a soda is "dinner". It's shameful.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

whodunit said:


> I recently read a book called "The China Study". I'm not saying I agreed with everything, but he said the rich and affluent have their own set of diseases to contend with.


Exactly. Money doesn't mean you can raise kids.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> I am not saying that at all. Money doesn't make anybody a better parent. But I do believe that people should be mentally and emotionally stable enough to raise children.


OK who decides who is emotionally able to raise children? Are you one of those you complain about? You must be because you have to find somebody else to test you and see if you are emotionally able to have children.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> I am not saying that at all. Money doesn't make anybody a better parent. But I do believe that people should be mentally and emotionally stable enough to raise children.
> 
> You were the one who brought up the fact that having children is a basic joy of life for many people. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to have children just because they make you happy but not being equipped to raise them is selfish.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is. Although I like the method the SPCA uses when people want to adopt an animal.


Okay, I'll ask again. By what authority will you impose that rule?


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Michael Kawalek said:


> You have to be a better consumer. <snip> You can do it!


I live in southwestern Ontario. The absolute cheapest meat I can find here is hamburger from our little village butcher shop. It's 2.39/lb. None of the large chain grocery stores in this area sell for less than that. The price of chicken is outrageous, even buying it off the farm from local Mennonite families. I will never find chicken of any sort for .77/lb. Eggs in the grocery store are $2.99/dozen. Our local shop sometimes has them for $2.50.

If I head to the nearest farmer's market, about 30 minutes from here, I can sometimes get a good deal if I get there right before closing.

Every 3 months or so we make a "border run" and cross into NY with a couple of large coolers to stock up on cheaper chicken. Not everyone can do that.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Our garden was horrible this year, only thing we really got out of it was massive amounts of anaheim peppers! Started freezing them to have on hand later, and I'm going to dry them as well. We just moved and don't have a garden tilled yet but I've got a lot of containers and my dad gave me some potting soil and fertilizer, so we will at least have some lettuce, broccoli and cabbage. Maybe some chard as well, I have to see how much I have. We're making do with what we got though It's a bit easier in a rural area I would think than in a city, but I could be biased lol


----------



## farmmom (Jan 4, 2009)

Dutchie said:


> Exactly. Money doesn't mean you can raise kids.


IF it did, I'd be in trouble! I have 2 children. We live on less than $1500/month. That includes paying a mortgage, power, water, and internet. If I wasn't in school online, we wouldn't have the internet. We haven't had TV hooked up in about 3 years. We make it, though it's tough at times. Hopefully once I finish my degree, I can get a decent job. Until then, we scrape. I provide my children with healthy meals, usually made from scratch, a roof over their heads and all the love I can heap on them, plus a heaping dose of reality and lessons in responsibility. What more does a child need?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

That link doesn't lead to an article. 

How did obesity become a question of marginally employable parents?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Okay, I'll ask again. By what authority will you impose that rule?


I know people who have decided not to have children because they could not afford them - one of the reasons just might be because of an "authority" that demands and imposes taxes on everyone to raise many, many other children. Who imposes that rule - the one that says you cannot afford your own children because you MUST care for someone else's children? When you look at the incentives to have more and more poverty stricken children for the bennies you must also think "hey, man - when will this stop?" Will the leeches soon overtake the producers? If you look at the Cloward/Pivens strategy you will see that there is a definite plan to overload the system to do just that. 
By what authority can they do that? LAW - you DO follow that rule or you will be imprisoned for not paying your taxes.
Isn't there room someplace for personal responsibility and for living life in an honorable way - not imposing your procreative forces onto everyone else? I know hormones and urges are basic, but where is human control - must everyone act and think with their genitals?


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> *So by what authority would you prevent them from having the children? *Do you believe that only the wealthy should be allowed to have children? *Since you see yourself as "giving" people the basic joy in life, at what income level would you allow them to have it?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> The government has enough authority.....A way to prevent having more children then you can raise properly is to cut off all assistance to these families after a set amount of time. I'm not saying not to give someone a helping hand when they're down and out- just for how long do they get to take all the free money and keep reproducing at the hardworking tax payers expense? That's a way of curbing family size.
> I live over an hours highway drive from the nearest supermarket.....that doesn't mean that I have to live on fast food or prepackaged food. Education is needed for these people and restrictions should be higher on the foods that they are allowed to purchase with welfare money.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Gercarson said:


> I know people who have decided not to have children because they could not afford them - one of the reasons just might be because of an "authority" that demands and imposes taxes on everyone to raise many, many other children. Who imposes that rule - the one that says you cannot afford your own children because you MUST care for someone else's children? When you look at the incentives to have more and more poverty stricken children for the bennies you must also think "hey, man - when will this stop?" Will the leeches soon overtake the producers? If you look at the Cloward/Pivens strategy you will see that there is a definite plan to overload the system to do just that.
> By what authority can they do that? LAW - you DO follow that rule or you will be imprisoned for not paying your taxes.
> Isn't there room someplace for personal responsibility and for living life in an honorable way - not imposing your procreative forces onto everyone else? I know hormones and urges are basic, but where is human control - must everyone act and think with their genitals?


We're talking about the marginally employable here, meaning low income. Most of them don't make enough to owe much in taxes to start with, and more kids means less tax and more than likely EIC and child tax credits to get more money back.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Sanza said:


> deaconjim said:
> 
> 
> > *So by what authority would you prevent them from having the children? *Do you believe that only the wealthy should be allowed to have children? *Since you see yourself as "giving" people the basic joy in life, at what income level would you allow them to have it?[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> For the same reasons everyone else has children.


This.

Because having children is a human right, not an employment right.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Maybe we shouldn't allow red heads to have children.Maybe people who work nights shouldn't have children either.People who can't run fast or far maybe shouldn't have children either.Where would it stop?People who are really poor buy a lot of corn starch and things like that.Most people have no idea of poverty.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

wwubben said:


> Maybe we shouldn't allow red heads to have children.Maybe people who work nights shouldn't have children either.People who can't run fast or far maybe shouldn't have children either.Where would it stop?People who are really poor buy a lot of corn starch and things like that.Most people have no idea of poverty.


How about those who keep popping them out at other's expense - maybe those are the ones who can't run fast or far. You can come up with a million excuses for being a burden on society - YES a burden, because you will be denying YOUR child at the expense of another's child that was begotten without thought or reason - they had them "just because" it's a "human right" - but it's a LEGAL obligation for society to care for that child - not to mention a moral one. With the Cloward/Pivens strategy coming right up - those are the ones who are going to suffer most - much less the suffering that they must endure because most of us DO have an "idea" of poverty - those who are not extremely selfish will not bring innocents into that world with any sanity. Corn starch can be your friend.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

primroselane said:


> Why should the marginally employable have children?


Who could stop them, and how?

Agree with Deaconjim here.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

primroselane said:


> Among New York City children who were overweight, 22 percent were obese, compared with 19.6 percent nationally.
> 
> The numbers were broken down by ZIP code and showed that less-affluent neighborhoods had the most severe problems. In the 2008-9 school year, the highest rates were found in Corona, Queens, where 51 percent of schoolchildren were overweight or obese. That was followed by parts of Harlem, with 48 to 49 percent, and Washington Heights, with 47 percent.
> 
> ...


Interesting question.
Can you expand on 'why' you would ask it?
Thanks!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

The Paw said:


> This.
> 
> Because having children is a human right, not an employment right.


Ahhh.
Children are a gift.
Life, is a right, by God.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Okay, I'll ask again. By what authority will you impose that rule?


Jim, as I said ... I don't know what the answer is. But I have witnessed 3 wonderful children go through the foster system for several years because their mother refused to give them up, despite the fact that she was not emotionally equipped to raise them.

They have now been adopted by loving, stable people. Hopefully the damage is reversible.

At what point does the interest of the kids become more important than the selfish wishes of the parents?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Ahhh.
> Children are a gift.
> Life, is a right, by God.


As long as you can take care of them.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

farmmom said:


> IF it did, I'd be in trouble! I have 2 children. We live on less than $1500/month. That includes paying a mortgage, power, water, and internet. If I wasn't in school online, we wouldn't have the internet. We haven't had TV hooked up in about 3 years. We make it, though it's tough at times. Hopefully once I finish my degree, I can get a decent job. Until then, we scrape. *I provide my children with healthy meals, usually made from scratch, a roof over their heads and all the love I can heap on them, plus a heaping dose of reality and lessons in responsibility. What more does a child need?*


Nothing.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

When we got married, the minister told us if we waited until we could afford children to have them, we'd never have them. For the most part it seems like he's right, my friends who've waited until they thought they could afford them always found something else to spend the money on and keep putting them off.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Jim, as I said ... I don't know what the answer is. But I have witnessed 3 wonderful children go through the foster system for several years because their mother refused to give them up, despite the fact that she was not emotionally equipped to raise them.
> 
> They have now been adopted by loving, stable people. Hopefully the damage is reversible.
> 
> At what point does the interest of the kids become more important than the selfish wishes of the parents?


I've seen parents without two pennies to rub together provide a loving home for their children and raise them to be wonderful, upstanding adults. I've also seen wealthy parents abuse and neglect their children to the point they became demented brats who were a menace to society.

Perhaps it's not about the money.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So by what authority would you prevent them from having the children?


No authority necessary; just remove all the subsidies. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized babysitters, earned income tax credit. 

If people still want to have kids -- knowing they have to foot the entire bill themselves -- hey, more power to 'em! 

For most of human history, people had kids because people generally enjoy sex and there was no way to avoid the consequences. (Or, there were ways, but the Church said you'd go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks for employing them.) But I digress! Today there is reliable birth control and legal abortion. There is no reason to have a kid unless you want one (or are too dumb or careless to use birth control properly -- and we all know these folks make the _very best_ parents, don't we?). 

Under the present circumstances, having a kid is a lot like going down to the pound and picking out a cute puppy or kitten, isn't it? And I suspect for most people, the motivation really isn't all that different. (It's something cute and cuddly ... and it will love me!) 

I don't see why we should be forced to subsidize other people's children, anymore than we should be required to subsidize their puppydogs or kittycats. 

(And they call me a liberal!)


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> As long as you can take care of them.


Even if you don't they are a gift from God( a phrase that I believe in). I have seen people that were fairly rich abuse children and those that were pour put everything to the child. Money is not the reason but the emotional well being that comes with child rearing is.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> No authority necessary; just remove all the subsidies. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized babysitters, earned income tax credit.
> 
> If people still want to have kids -- knowing they have to foot the entire bill themselves -- hey, more power to 'em!
> 
> ...


You can rest assured that I am more than willing to remove the subsidies. I encourage it in fact. My question however, was in response to this statement by Dutchie, which suggests a different solution altogether:



Dutchie said:


> I don't know what the answer is. Although I like the method the SPCA uses when people want to adopt an animal.


This would suggest passing a law allowing the government to decide who can and who cannot have children. Such a proposal I would oppose with everything I have in me.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

As soon as you vote to give the govt the power to control your neighbors life, you have also just voted to give govt the power to control yours. I dont know why people cant grasp this basic concept.

Its amazing many here who say the govt is incompetent and corrupt fiscally, but somehow think they are pure as the driven snow when imposing social mandates. So somehow people here wouldnt trust the govt with an extra $100, but would trust them to tell their neighbor if they can have children, or whether to put their neighbor to death, or whether to force their neighbor to go risk his life in war for them????


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This would suggest passing a law allowing the government to decide who can and who cannot have children. Such a proposal I would oppose with everything I have in me.


Me too. I like freedom! Probably the only difference between us in this regard is I favor both ends of the spectrum of reproductive freedom -- the right to have kids if you want them, AND the right to terminate a pregnancy if you don't. 

Removing the subsidies would certainly make life interesting, though. You folks want a revolution? Take away food stamps, the earned income tax credit, and other niceties that make it possible for America's poor to breed and keep their kids feds -- you'll have blood in the streets in less than a year. Bet on it!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> As soon as you vote to give the govt the power to control your neighbors life, you have also just voted to give govt the power to control yours. I dont know why people cant grasp this basic concept.
> 
> Its amazing many here who say the govt is incompetent and corrupt fiscally, but somehow think they are pure as the driven snow when imposing social mandates. So somehow people here wouldnt trust the govt with an extra $100, but would trust them to tell their neighbor if they can have children, or whether to put their neighbor to death, or whether to force their neighbor to go risk his life in war for them????


Too bad these simple concepts weren't bashed into the heads of every American from the day the Declaration was signed.
The snowball was introduced to the slippery slope long ago.

As for rules and regulations, any time you feed at the public trough, the public "handlers" most certainly do have the right to regulate just how much feed you get. 

If you can't fend for yourself, and you sign over your rights for privileges, you most emphatically do not have the right to procreate.
Other countries have certainly shown how they are willing to handle administering the details of enforcing such an agreement. The documents have been signed and the fine print ignored here in the US of A, but they're keeping the kid gloves on just a little bit longer......

Oh, if people only knew how thin is the thread by which security hangs.

Don't sign their forms.
Don't take their benefits.
That way, when they come for you, at least they'll be acting against you without your consent. Some day, that's going to matter.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Dutchie said:


> As long as you can take care of them.


Not according to God.
He calls them, A Gift. Period
Not a gift "if".
Not a gift "but".
The Lord says, children are a gift. Period.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> You folks want a revolution? Take away food stamps, the earned income tax credit, and other niceties that make it possible for America's poor to breed and keep their kids feds -- you'll have blood in the streets in less than a year. Bet on it!


A year ?!

The blood would start to flow less than a week after the first checks failed to arrive.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Oh, I think it would take a bit longer than that. 

If history's any example, people will steal first. 

But when that no longer works ... look out!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not according to God.
> He calls them, A Gift. Period
> Not a gift "if".
> Not a gift "but".
> The Lord says, children are a gift. Period.


The Lord also gave us Proverbs 24:27....."Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house".
See to your families' provision before you start one.

There is also the admonition to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"
What everyone conveniently leaves out is "Render unto God, what is God's".

It is very convenient to sign over newborn children--"gifts from God"-- to the state, which is undeniably "Caesar".
Once signed over to the state, God's laws do not apply lest what has been done is undone and the slate is wiped clean.
The state has every right to regulate it's own.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> See to your families' provision before you start one.


Would that include, like, having health insurance to pay the bill if your wife needs an emergency C-section?

Just sayin'! 

(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, Forerunner, and assume you've taken your own advice, and had a ginormous stash of cash tucked away to settle the bill.)


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Would that include, like, having health insurance to pay the bill if your wife needs an emergency C-section?
> 
> Just sayin'!
> 
> (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, Forerunner, and assume you've taken your own advice, and had a ginormous stash of cash tucked away to settle the bill.)


Point taken! 

Rest assured, Love...... there will be no tax dollars subsidizing the delivery of little Lily.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

So does that mean you're paying the bill, or you're just going to stiff the hospital?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> The Lord also gave us Proverbs 24:27....."Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house".
> See to your families' provision before you start one.
> 
> There is also the admonition to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"
> ...


*smile*

Every verse you have referred to is God's Word....however, The Lord was speaking to His disciples about something TOTALLY different (not children) when He told them to give GOD what is God's....(which by the way, is everything) and THEN give to Czar what is Czars....which was the coin that had his face on it. They were not talking about children. They were talking about who is First (the Lord) and who is second, Czar. The Pharisees were trying to 'twist and manipulate the Lord's Words to trap Him' (a common practice today) and at the end of this passage, they went away and were more determined than ever to kill Him. Because they were wrong, and He was Right.....
Again, nothing new under the sun!

Matthew 22:15-22

15* Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. *
16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" 
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 
19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 
20 and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" 
21 "Caesar's," they replied. 
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

((There is one reference to 'children' in Matthew 22. It's in verses 23-33 and it's addressing the Resurrection.))

Children, are a gift.
God said it, I believe it. Period.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> So does that mean you're paying the bill, or you're just going to stiff the hospital?


Without going into great and minute detail on a public forum, let's suffice it to say that "stiffing" anyone is not an option for me. If a service is sought after and consequently provided for me or mine, the provider of that service will be recompensed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

All right, good for you!
Let the record show, the man practices what he preaches.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Children, are a gift.
> God said it, I believe it. Period.


So, just out of random curiosity, why do "God's" people consistently surrender that gift to the state ?
Is not God's law, provision, dominion, "perfect law of liberty" enough ?

There is a chasm of distinction between God's law and rule, and that of the state. 

You can't have both.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Poor people eat cheaper food which usually means high carbohydrate laden food. Protein, fresh fruits and veggies cost more money than processed carbohydrates.


----------



## primroselane (May 10, 2002)

We have previously gone over the fact that it is possible to eat healthily on a food stamp allotment.

Most poor people choose to eat what they eat.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

zong said:


> I have never understood this statement. When chicken, most fruit, most vegetables, etc cost less than a dollar a pound, and potato chips cost $3.50 for 12 ounces. Water is free, soft drinks are a dollar plus. I have never understood the concept that its cheaper to eat junk.


Amen brother Zong, It all boils down to choices. >Thanks Marc


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

The Paw said:


> This.
> 
> Because having children is a human right, not an employment right.


Yes. But the children have a right to be raised by well balanced parents. I have seen, first hand, what it does to kids to be bounced around after being "raised" by a lunatic. Not to mention the toll on society because these kids rarely turn into well balanced, contributing members of society.

In other words .... many children from unbalanced parents turn into welfare recipients.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> I've seen parents without two pennies to rub together provide a loving home for their children and raise them to be wonderful, upstanding adults. I've also seen wealthy parents abuse and neglect their children to the point they became demented brats who were a menace to society.
> 
> *Perhaps it's not about the money*.


That is what I have been saying all along.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> Even if you don't they are a gift from God( a phrase that I believe in). I have seen people that were fairly rich abuse children and those that were pour put everything to the child. Money is not the reason but the emotional well being that comes with child rearing is.


If you have read my previous posts, you would have noticed that I refer to being mentally and emotionally stable enough to raise them. That part has nothing to do with money. Although I do believe that you need to be able to financially take care of the bare necessities without resorting to government handouts.

As Willow said: and they call ME a liberal.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not according to God.
> He calls them, A Gift. Period
> Not a gift "if".
> Not a gift "but".
> The Lord says, children are a gift. Period.


That is really nice and idealistic but not very practical.

So let's take a bi-polar woman that abuses drugs. She is also lazy and has a bad taste in men.

She produces 4 children. Luckily the youngest was taken away from her at birth by the biological father. The other three went from unstable home to foster care back to the unstable home. And while they were in that unstable home they were exposed to abusive behaviour by the "Daddy of the Day". 

These children are now 10, 8 and 6 and are permanently living with their maternal grandmother now. And make no mistake ... they are extremely damaged.

It took the courts 3 years to finally cut the parental rights. Because "children belong with their natural parents".

I say bull. Yes, we all have basic rights, but these children didn't ask to be born and are damaged for life. 

So .... as I have said before ... people should not be allowed to have kids just because they can, biologically. It does not take much money .... it does, howevr, take patience and maturity.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> You can rest assured that I am more than willing to remove the subsidies. I encourage it in fact. My question however, was in response to this statement by Dutchie, which suggests a different solution altogether:
> 
> 
> 
> This would suggest passing a law allowing the government to decide who can and who cannot have children. Such a proposal I would oppose with everything I have in me.


Me too. As I said ... I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that just having kids because you can is not a good option in many cases.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> Yes. But the children have a right to be raised by well balanced parents. I have seen, first hand, what it does to kids to be bounced around after being "raised" by a lunatic. Not to mention the toll on society because these kids rarely turn into well balanced, contributing members of society.
> 
> In other words .... many children from unbalanced parents turn into welfare recipients.


You seem to be drawing some sort of causal connection between source of income and mental health. That hasn't been my experience, and I worked for several years in the field of child welfare. 

There are all kinds of sociopaths and ne'er do wells who have been raised by employed and economically stable parents. Conversely, there are plenty of upstanding and prosperous citizens whose parents were on public assistance.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Me too. As I said ... I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that just having kids because you can is not a good option in many cases.


You are right about it not being a good option. In this country however, we are free to make poor decisions. We also have to live with the consequences (for the most part anyway), and often our poor decisions hurt those that we love. That is a fact of live, and one we will have to live with if we are to remain free. The best we can ever do is try to help lift people up who need encouragement and guidance, love them as best as we know how, and try to make the world a better place one person at a time. The key here is that these are things that we as individuals should be doing, not leaving it to the government to regulate.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. You've got poor people who raise their kids, who don't know any better, to be just like them. Then you got rich folks who raise their kids with the best of everything, send them to the best schools, get fed by a cook and clothed by a housekeeper, who turn out to be sociopaths who only care about themselves and their entertainment. They then get thrust into the real world and don't understand why people don't do what they say just because they were so spoiled that they never had any kind of consequences and didn't understand that in real life, you don't always get your way.

Money doesn't solve anything, nor does it make someone mentally stable. It's always sad that the kids are the ones that get hurt, in one way or the other. There isn't an easy solution when humans are involved. There are some good and some bad. Our jobs as humans and as parents is to make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated. I am doing everything I possibly can to teach my kids how I ended up where I am today, and how not to end up the same place as me. I teach my sons how to treat women the right way and to get schooling, whether it be a vocational school or their masters. I teach my daughters the same thing. Even if their greatest aspiration is to be a stay at home mom, that's great, but get the schooling just in case. You never know what can happen to land you on your behind.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> So, just out of random curiosity, why do "God's" people consistently surrender that gift to the state ?
> Is not God's law, provision, dominion, "perfect law of liberty" enough ?
> 
> There is a chasm of distinction between God's law and rule, and that of the state.
> ...


_*
You are right. You cannot have both.*_

*1 Corinthians 10:21*
You cannot drink the *cup* of the Lord and the *cup* of *demons* too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of *demons*.
*
Not sure what you call "God's People", but God has a lot to say about who are, and who are not His:*

*Matthew 7:13-14*
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

*Matthew 7:15-23*
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 
18 *A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.* 
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 
20 *Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. *21 *"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.* 

22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 

23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


Just because someone says "on yeah, I believe in God, or they go to church, or wear a cross, or know a couple of Scriptures".......doesn't mean they are His Children.
Just because you walk into a Mc Donalds doesn't mean you are automatically a Happy Meal.
Ditto with being a Child of God, a Believer and Follower of Christ......


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Dutchie said:


> That is really nice and idealistic but not very practical.
> 
> So let's take a bi-polar woman that abuses drugs. She is also lazy and has a bad taste in men.
> 
> ...


I whole heartedly agree with everything you said.
But this truth makes my truth, no less true.
Those children are a blessing from God.
Unfortunately, their mother doesn't know God, or the Blessing He has bestowed upon her.....
But it makes those children no less blessing.
Just makes the mother, blind to the Truth.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Dutchie said:


> I can. She is not equipped to raise children. And she should not have had them. Just because you can reproduce doesn't mean you should.


And when you become God you can make up your own rules for the Universe, until then we'll abide by the ones we currently have.

The problem is not that anybody can reproduce, it's that we continue to pay the non-working class to reproduce.

I heartily recommend the short story "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

So we have established that underemployed should not reproduce.. but what about the kids that already exist? Grandfathered in or taken from the home?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

The Paw said:


> You seem to be drawing some sort of causal connection between source of income and mental health. That hasn't been my experience, and I worked for several years in the field of child welfare.
> 
> There are all kinds of sociopaths and ne'er do wells who have been raised by employed and economically stable parents. Conversely, there are plenty of upstanding and prosperous citizens whose parents were on public assistance.


No I don't. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> _*
> You are right. You cannot have both.*_
> 
> *1 Corinthians 10:21*
> ...


Romans 13:1-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So we have established that underemployed should not reproduce.. but what about the kids that already exist? Grandfathered in or taken from the home?


Funny, for most of recorded history, most parents managed to provide for their children, and this despite the fact that families often were quite large, owing to the lack of reliable birth control. 

It's only been in the last 50 or so years that we've had both reliable birth control, AND a host of people who can't seem to raise their kids without government assistance. Isn't that odd? 

I have no doubt that the vast majority of parents, if faced with the choice of providing for their children, seeing them go hungry, or surrendering them to an orphanage (the solution in the years before welfare), would magically develop the ability to shift for themselves.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Funny, for most of recorded history, most parents managed to provide for their children, and this despite the fact that families often were quite large, owing to the lack of reliable birth control.
> 
> It's only been in the last 50 or so years that we've had both reliable birth control, AND a host of people who can't seem to raise their kids without government assistance. Isn't that odd?
> 
> I have no doubt that the vast majority of parents, if faced with the choice of providing for their children, seeing them go hungry, or surrendering them to an orphanage (the solution in the years before welfare), would magically develop the ability to shift for themselves.


WG, if we keep agreeing with each other, people are going to talk.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

ROFL


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Funny, for most of recorded history, most parents managed to provide for their children, and this despite the fact that families often were quite large, owing to the lack of reliable birth control.
> 
> It's only been in the last 50 or so years that we've had both reliable birth control, AND a host of people who can't seem to raise their kids without government assistance. Isn't that odd?
> 
> I have no doubt that the vast majority of parents, if faced with the choice of providing for their children, seeing them go hungry, or surrendering them to an orphanage (the solution in the years before welfare), would magically develop the ability to shift for themselves.


I am not sure your assumptions are correct. 

Of the 4 branches of my family tree, 3 are tied to "Home Children" the name for Poor Law orphans who were grabbed up by Victorian child welfare agencies (like Barnardo's and the Salvation Army), and sent to the colonies for cheap labour. This practice went from the 1880's through to the early 1960s, and the children were often not "true orphans". They were sometimes born out of wedlock, sometimes the urchin children of the underclass, and often the children of single parents who were domestics in the homes of the upper middle class. 

My point is twofold: firstly, social class and economics meant that many of these parents did not actually have a choice, and secondly, that of the many strategies society has used to deal with these children, paying social assistance to the mothers is not necessarily the worst.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

The thing is, building orphanages to house the children of indigents doesn't encourage those parents to have even more children. Providing them with a monthly stipend, food, a place to live, etc. ... well, we've seen the outcome!

My great-grandmother's older siblings spent some time in a Catholic orphanage in Iowa after their mother died in childbirth on her way to the New World. Their father, unable to care for a large number of small children by himself, left them in the care of the Church until he was able to get established and remarry. The experience does not appear to have been unduly traumatic for the children, as two of the girls grew up to become nuns, and one of the boys was raised in the rectory by a priest and continued to live there even after his siblings returned to the family home. 

I do think modern circumstances are a bit different from the past. Today, families tend to be smaller. The average family receiving welfare in 1997 -- the first statistics readily found -- consisted of 2.8 people. I believe an average household in 1900 contained 7 or more people! One can see how a bereaved mother of 6, in the labor market of a century ago, might find it very difficult to support her large brood. I'm not sure we shouldn't expect a modern single mom of one or two children to shift for herself, though.

Also, at present there appears to be a shortage of infants and young children available for adoption. Americans often resort to going to Third World countries to obtain children! I doubt we would have to resort to shipping any off to Australia.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> I know people who have decided not to have children because they could not afford them - one of the reasons just might be because of an "authority" that demands and imposes taxes on everyone to raise many, many other children. Who imposes that rule - the one that says you cannot afford your own children because you MUST care for someone else's children? When you look at the incentives to have more and more poverty stricken children for the bennies you must also think "hey, man - when will this stop?" Will the leeches soon overtake the producers? If you look at the Cloward/Pivens strategy you will see that there is a definite plan to overload the system to do just that.
> By what authority can they do that? LAW - you DO follow that rule or you will be imprisoned for not paying your taxes.
> Isn't there room someplace for personal responsibility and for living life in an honorable way - not imposing your procreative forces onto everyone else? I know hormones and urges are basic, but where is human control - must everyone act and think with their genitals?


My parents use to say "If we waited until we could afford to have kids, we never would have had any." Yet they successfully raised 5 kids on very limited income. We didn't have the most expensive things in life, but we learned that if we wanted something that we had to work for it. We also learned to make do with what we had until we could earn more.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Funny, for most of recorded history, most parents managed to provide for their children, and this despite the fact that families often were quite large, owing to the lack of reliable birth control.
> 
> It's only been in the last 50 or so years that we've had both reliable birth control, AND a host of people who can't seem to raise their kids without government assistance. Isn't that odd?
> 
> I have no doubt that the vast majority of parents, if faced with the choice of providing for their children, seeing them go hungry, or surrendering them to an orphanage (the solution in the years before welfare), would magically develop the ability to shift for themselves.


I agree. In the past if something happened that the parents could not take care of a child, then family would step in to help. Now that the government gives so many hand outs we no longer see that. These government handouts have basically made people a slave to the government. They get so entangled in it that it's hard to break the cycle, that's why we're seeing it become a generational thing.


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

I am shocked at what I have been reading on this. Who Died and made you God. Sex Police , Baby Enforcer . 
Well what about all them millionaires that have gone broke, take their kids, send them to Forster Care. 
Man some of the stupid things you read on here form people that think they know better than you, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
This is funny reading,LOL


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> You are right about it not being a good option. In this country however, we are free to make poor decisions. We also have to live with the consequences (for the most part anyway), and often our poor decisions hurt those that we love. That is a fact of live, and one we will have to live with if we are to remain free. The best we can ever do is try to help lift people up who need encouragement and guidance, love them as best as we know how, and try to make the world a better place one person at a time. The key here is that these are things that we as individuals should be doing, not leaving it to the government to regulate.


I agree with everything you say. But I can't stop thinking about the kids who are suffering as a consequence. And I am not talking about the financial side of it. 

My adding the unsuitability as parents other than financially has caused some confusion, I now realize.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I whole heartedly agree with everything you said.
> But this truth makes my truth, no less true.
> Those children are a blessing from God.


This brings up an interesting question.

Children are just small people who eventually grow up to be larger people. 

Does that mean adults also are a blessing from God? They are, after all, nothing more than grown children.

If the answer is "no," can someone pinpoint the exact moment when children cease to be blessings from God, and become mere humans, just like the rest of us?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Kazahleenah said:


> Romans 13:1-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.


 May I suggest that reading Romans 13, with a Greek dictionary, after deep prayer asking the Spirit to guide, will clear up any questions one may have.

The way *I* understand this passage is that Paul is speaking to believers. When he speaks of 'governing authorities' he is speaking of "civil matters" like the courts.
Not politicians


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> This brings up an interesting question.
> 
> Children are just small people who eventually grow up to be larger people.
> 
> ...


That question is so "deep" it echos!! What an awesome question.

The ability to reproduce is a gift. Not everyone has it.
Children are a blessing. God said it. 
Each one of us was uniquely Created (Psalm 139) for a specific purpose.

Sin separates us from God. We are born with it, from Adam.
When we become Believers, and Followers of Christ.....we become a new Creation, and are called Children of God. (Even as adults, we are called Children of God) 
Because He (God) is our Father, that then makes us all "children" regaurdless of our age.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

So, if I understand this correctly, all children start out as "blessings of God."

At some (yet-to-be-defined) point, the ones who become believers continue to be "children" and "blessings of God" while presumably the unbelievers lose their most favored status?



> The way *I* understand this passage is that Paul is speaking to believers. When he speaks of 'governing authorities' he is speaking of "civil matters" like the courts.
> Not politicians


If someone spoke of "governing authorities" today, would we automatically think of the courts, or of other entities, such as, perhaps, the _governor_?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, all children start out as "blessings of God."
> 
> At some (yet-to-be-defined) point, the ones who become believers continue to be "children" and "blessings of God" while presumably the unbelievers lose their most favored status?


Each human being is Created uniquely and for a specific purpose.
(Psalm 139).
"children are a blessing from God"
I will have to look up the Greek to see if this and other passages are referring to the "ability to conceive, carry and deliver a child" OR that ALL born are a blessing....
Alot of times, the true meaning of a passage gets lost in the Greek to English translation.....
Let me dig into this and get a better answer for you.





> If someone spoke of "governing authorities" today, would we automatically think of the courts, or of other entities, such as, perhaps, the _governor_?


Not sure? 
Today is SO much different than then.....


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Gregg Alexander said:


> I am shocked at what I have been reading on this. Who Died and made you God. Sex Police , Baby Enforcer .
> Well what about all them millionaires that have gone broke, take their kids, send them to Forster Care.
> Man some of the stupid things you read on here form people that think they know better than you, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
> This is funny reading,LOL


Although I don't necessarily agree with your latter point there (which rich parents are doing that? Thought most of them just let the nanny raise the kids), I agree with your general tone.

I don't find it funny, I find it a travesty.

The tone of the beginning of this thread is that if you are overweight you are somehow unemployable. Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

Then if you are poor it is because you are unemployable. Am I the only one living in the crappy economy where jobs are hard to find? These days you practically have to PAY to get a job.

What happened to caring about people? Why are so many on this forum so quick to say, "No gov't intervention for me and mine, but for the rest of you screwups, more regulations!"?? 

Do I think people should plan on living on 'welfare' for life? No way. I think it shortchanges them, and gives their own children a narrow vision of life's possibilities. Do I think being poor makes you an ignoramus, unemployable, or overweight? Um, nope. 

Some people say 'good enough' when they are just getting by. I think that is unfortunate, but to stretch that and say they are horrid parents and that their kids will grow up to be mentally deficient is carp. Rich people abuse each other, too. Middle class kids do drugs, too. Jeez, many years ago I knew a kid who dealt drugs out of his backpack. He was 14. Did he need the money? Nope, both parents were lawyers. But he had too much time alone and thought it was 'cool'. 


People need to drop the image of the 'unwashed masses'. That isn't necessarily the face of people in poverty anymore. We may not like the people who abuse the social system, but there are many more who use it as a leg out of a bad situation. 


-Me who is grateful for gov't grants so I can get a college education and have a GOOD career (and lest you think it's abuse, I'm on my 4th semester with a 4.0 average, thanks)


----------



## primroselane (May 10, 2002)

Children are indeed a blessing. Or as Carl Sandburg said, "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on."

The problem is not the blessing but the person given the blessing. God blessed Israel many times and they always abused the blessings which led to negative consequences for all the people, both righteous and not.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

primroselane said:


> Children are indeed a blessing. Or as Carl Sandburg said, "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on."
> 
> The problem is not the blessing but the person given the blessing. God blessed Israel many times and they always abused the blessings which led to negative consequences for all the people, both righteous and not.


Well said.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

deaconjim said:


> Poor decision making skills manifest themselves in a number of ways. They affect both the economic viability of individuals (and subsequently their offspring), as well as their physical wellbeing.
> 
> As for having children, a case could certainly be made that it would not be a wise choice to have children until a person's economic status is adequate to raise a family. That determination however, is clearly subjective and should be left up to the individuals involved. Having children, to many people, is one of the most basic joys of life and no one else has a right to decide for them if or when they should do so.


Yup, but a lot of those kids likely weren't a choice at all really, more of an unintended consequence.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

QoTL said:


> Do I think people should plan on living on 'welfare' for life? No way. I think it shortchanges them, and gives their own children a narrow vision of life's possibilities.


I think that's an understatement.


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> You can rest assured that I am more than willing to remove the subsidies. I encourage it in fact. My question however, was in response to this statement by Dutchie, which suggests a different solution altogether:
> 
> 
> 
> This would suggest passing a law allowing the government to decide who can and who cannot have children. Such a proposal I would oppose with everything I have in me.


As would I. We have all seen that if you give the Gov't an inch, they take 5 miles. 



HermitJohn said:


> As soon as you vote to give the govt the power to control your neighbors life, you have also just voted to give govt the power to control yours. I dont know why people cant grasp this basic concept.
> 
> Its amazing many here who say the govt is incompetent and corrupt fiscally, but somehow think they are pure as the driven snow when imposing social mandates. So somehow people here wouldnt trust the govt with an extra $100, but would trust them to tell their neighbor if they can have children, or whether to put their neighbor to death, or whether to force their neighbor to go risk his life in war for them????


Touche`!!!!



primroselane said:


> We have previously gone over the fact that it is possible to eat healthily on a food stamp allotment.
> 
> Most poor people choose to eat what they eat.


Not all poor people get food stamps. Try eating healthy in a city, with barley enough money for a sack of potatoes. No money to get to a supermarket, and no money to spend when you get there. 



Laura Zone 5 said:


> *smile*
> 
> 
> Children, are a gift.
> God said it, I believe it. Period.


1 Timothy 5:8-8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
*smile*


Not everyone is poor because they want to be, not even because they are lazy. Sometimes, crap just happens. Not everyone has access to supermarkets, farm markets, garden plots and such. Even those that do, many cannot afford the products there. True, almost anyone can grow a few things on their patio, window etc... but it's not enough to feed a family.
I am against welfare "rats" that are allowed to make a career out of it. But I can tell you that not everyone receives federal/state bennies that qualifies for them. As for the weight thing, it IS cheaper to buy a sack of potatoes, hotdogs and a case of mac and cheese to fill up on, than it is to buy meat (even chicken), vegetables and potatoes. Anyone who thinks diffrent has never walked a mile in "their" shoes.


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

Q
so gracious said . Most people on here are I think good people. Sometimes they don't use the head except for a hat rack. Some post are good and some are a joke. 
When my wife and I married we decided to have 3 kids and that is what we have. Now we have a handicapped son , has some motor skills that make him slow to catch on to simple things. But he has a collage degree in Accounting, works , lives on his own. Has a girlfriend (same one for 3 yrs) should they decided to get hitched so be it. Now form reading some of the post would should they have kids, sure if they want one. What if he loses his job has another kid on the way does that make they unfit to have children, No. Will that put a hardship on they Yes. With faith in God and the power to survive things will work out. Good or Bad ? who will know.
I was raised by hard working parents , we never have had much but we do have the ability to at least get something to eat. I have a dry sense of humor and don't care who likes me and who don't. My extended family is close and if someone needs help we pitch in and do what is necessary to help them out. We live by the golden rule, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We put our faith in God that he will see us through hard times


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> 1 Timothy 5:8-8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
> *smile*


*
True!! And if we live according to Scripture, government would have NO ROLE whatsoever in our day to day family life.
Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world, with the whole "free will" things.
People chose. Sometimes, not well.
It makes God's Word no less True!*



> Not everyone is poor because they want to be, not even because they are lazy. Sometimes, crap just happens.


Right. Refer to statement above in bold.



> Not everyone has access to supermarkets, farm markets, garden plots and such. Even those that do, many cannot afford the products there. True, almost anyone can grow a few things on their patio, window etc... but it's not enough to feed a family.


True again. Sad. If we took care of our own, as Scripture Commands, again, refer to above in bold!



> I am against welfare "rats" that are allowed to make a career out of it. But I can tell you that not everyone receives federal/state bennies that qualifies for them


Agree!! Some people who steal these 'benefits' are doing just that. Stealing. Some people make a career on hand outs.....then spend their lives justifying their choice. They don't realize that they are slaves.

.


> As for the weight thing, it IS cheaper to buy a sack of potatoes, hotdogs and a case of mac and cheese to fill up on, than it is to buy meat (even chicken), vegetables and potatoes. Anyone who thinks diffrent has never walked a mile in "their" shoes.


It's easier, that's for sure.
When I 'walked' in those shoes (minus the welfare) I found myself buying day old bread, meat that was marked down because it expired the next day, dented cans, crumpled boxes, and marked down veggies.
Long gone are those days. Why?
My dh went to school, and 13 years later, had his degree.
I worked 2 and 3 jobs waiting tables. 
We didn't go out to eat. We didn't have credit cards, cell phones, internet access. We didn't go to movies, concerts or buy records or c/d's. I didn't get my hair and nails done. I didn't carry a Coach purse. 
We used the library for our entertainment.
And I never felt "someone owed me".

I vividly remember the day that I could go to the gas station, zip my check card, and fill up my gas tank. I thought "wow....we've made it".
I also remember when we could afford to buy Aunt Millies bread, instead of day old bread.

No one handed this to me. I busted my hump, with 3 babies (3 kids in 4 years). We were broke, broke. But we were not poor.....not by any stretch.

What's the solution?
A change of heart. A change of priorities. A work ethic. A sense of dignity.
That is not something that can be taught in a class.....it is something that one human (or more) has to share/role model, for another.
You can't change a mind, until you have changed, a heart.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> This brings up an interesting question.
> 
> Children are just small people who eventually grow up to be larger people.
> 
> ...


The answer to your question is a most definite "Yes". All human life is a gift from God, which is why Jesus told us to love our neighbors. Some of the things people do however, is not such a blessing.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, all children start out as "blessings of God."
> 
> At some (yet-to-be-defined) point, the ones who become believers continue to be "children" and "blessings of God" while presumably the unbelievers lose their most favored status?


No, they continue to be God's children and are a blessing. Some will choose to follow Christ to Heaven, others will not. God grieves for each one that does not.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

And, it must be remembered that the children sent to Chinese, Hindu and Muslim mothers are also gifts from God.

It's just that something got messed up with the shipping contractor.

Hence the phrase: "The devil is in the details."


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> *
> True!! And if we live according to Scripture, government would have NO ROLE whatsoever in our day to day family life.
> Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world, with the whole "free will" things.
> People chose. Sometimes, not well.
> ...


:clap::goodjob::clap:


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> . It's easier, that's for sure.
> When *I '*walked' in those shoes (minus the welfare*) I *found *myself* buying day old bread, meat that was marked down because it expired the next day, dented cans, crumpled boxes, and marked down veggies.
> Long gone are those days. Why?
> My dh went to school, and 13 years later, had his degree.
> ...


Funny how there are so many "I's" in your reply. 
Your husband went to school, and now you are comfortable. 
How would have fared doing it all alone? Just curious. 
You say you were broke, but not poor... then I would say you have never walked a "mile in their shoes".


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

People say we shouldn't rely on the government, but on our churches and families. What do you do when the churches and your family are broke as well? Yes, we are on food stamps because right now with 4 kids aged 11-4 and I am taking care of them and taking 15 hours of college classes. Also, I have put out many job applications but I am unable to lift over 20 lbs so most jobs around here are out. I don't have the right education for the other jobs, so I am working on the education. A lot of folks on here have said that they have had a rough row to hoe and that they made it without assistance, well good for you. I am working on that as well, we moved to the country where we can plant a ginormous garden and with a little luck and prayer be able to grow our own food. Also, when we get taxes back this year(which is another form of welfare by the way, so how many are on welfare but just don't admit it?) I want to buy livestock of some form. FIL runs cattle(we live on his land) and he's not running but 30 head on 140 acres, so we could buy a couple calves and raise them up for beef. Or we could get into sheep or goats. I am planning ahead and anxiously awaiting that day when we no longer need assistance and I can start paying it back by being a darned good teacher and donating time and money to organizations.

So before you start lumping everyone in on the "welfare scum" comments, remember: not all of us chose to be here and we're doing everything we can to get out.

I am now stepping off my soapbox


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

whiskeylivewire said:


> People say we shouldn't rely on the government, but on our churches and families. What do you do when the churches and your family are broke as well? Yes, we are on food stamps because right now with 4 kids aged 11-4 and I am taking care of them and taking 15 hours of college classes. Also, I have put out many job applications but I am unable to lift over 20 lbs so most jobs around here are out. I don't have the right education for the other jobs, so I am working on the education. A lot of folks on here have said that they have had a rough row to hoe and that they made it without assistance, well good for you. I am working on that as well, we moved to the country where we can plant a ginormous garden and with a little luck and prayer be able to grow our own food. Also, when we get taxes back this year(which is another form of welfare by the way, so how many are on welfare but just don't admit it?) I want to buy livestock of some form. FIL runs cattle(we live on his land) and he's not running but 30 head on 140 acres, so we could buy a couple calves and raise them up for beef. Or we could get into sheep or goats. I am planning ahead and anxiously awaiting that day when we no longer need assistance and I can start paying it back by being a darned good teacher and donating time and money to organizations.
> 
> So before you start lumping everyone in on the "welfare scum" comments, remember: not all of us chose to be here and we're doing everything we can to get out.
> 
> I am now stepping off my soapbox


Good for you! That's what it's supposed to be for... a leg up so to speak. I've been in your shoes before..(only didn't have family to lean on or help). You keep your dreams in sight and you'll do great!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

whiskeylivewire said:


> People say we shouldn't rely on the government, but on our churches and families. What do you do when the churches and your family are broke as well? Yes, we are on food stamps because right now with 4 kids aged 11-4 and I am taking care of them and taking 15 hours of college classes. Also, I have put out many job applications but I am unable to lift over 20 lbs so most jobs around here are out. I don't have the right education for the other jobs, so I am working on the education. A lot of folks on here have said that they have had a rough row to hoe and that they made it without assistance, well good for you. I am working on that as well, we moved to the country where we can plant a ginormous garden and with a little luck and prayer be able to grow our own food. Also, when we get taxes back this year(which is another form of welfare by the way, so how many are on welfare but just don't admit it?) I want to buy livestock of some form. FIL runs cattle(we live on his land) and he's not running but 30 head on 140 acres, so we could buy a couple calves and raise them up for beef. Or we could get into sheep or goats. I am planning ahead and anxiously awaiting that day when we no longer need assistance and I can start paying it back by being a darned good teacher and donating time and money to organizations.
> 
> So before you start lumping everyone in on the "welfare scum" comments, remember: not all of us chose to be here and we're doing everything we can to get out.
> 
> I am now stepping off my soapbox


Unfortunately, the politicians have established a welfare state that has made so many people dependent on the government, and has crowded out churches and other organizations that might have been able to help. That leaves some people no other choice but to rely on the government, which is what the politicians had in mind all along.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Kazahleenah said:


> Funny how there are so many "I's" in your reply.
> Your husband went to school, and now you are comfortable.
> How would have fared doing it all alone? Just curious.
> You say you were broke, but not poor... then I would say you have never walked a "mile in their shoes".


That's because it was 'my' story .

Alone? It would have been tougher. I probably would still be close to where I was in the story. Broke, but not poor.

And if 'walking a mile in their shoes' means I have to have NO self respect, become lazy and think someone owes me something, attach myself to welfare, stop caring what's best for the kids and only care about myself" then you are right......
I will NEVER walk a mile in those shoes. 
Ever.

It took YEARS of hard work to be able to afford then things we have.
Years of hard work......
Not years of handouts.
Not sitting around my our butts, waiting for "the man" to hand it to me (which by the way, will never happen)
We dug in, got to work, and raised 3 amazing children.

Money doesn't determine one's ability to parent.
The heart, does.
If the heart is bad, then the whole body is bad.

There is a difference between a 'leg up' and a 'hand out'.
I am not against a 'leg up'. Some folks need it. I am thankful it's there for those who do, because some day, it might be me.
I am very much against those who see the "hand out" as their lifestyle.
I am sick of working 3 jobs so they can sit on their fat butts and watch oprah, while their nails dry and their hair sets at the salon.
ALL on my dime.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> Unfortunately, the politicians have established a welfare state that has made so many people dependent on the government, and has crowded out churches and other organizations that might have been able to help. That leaves some people no other choice but to rely on the government, which is what the politicians had in mind all along.



I don't disagree with you and I most assuredly wish I had never ended up in this position. But I did and I have to be thankful that the help was there because if it wasn't, it would be a lot worse. 


I enjoy your posts, Jim. You are never one to be hateful and condesecending and holier than thou, you state your opinions respectfully and don't really lump everyone together. Thanks.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I am very much against those who see the "hand out" as their lifestyle.


I am very much against the people who make it possible for folks to subsist indefinitely on welfare.

As to the recipients themselves -- it may well be in their best interest to accept charity rather than working. And I generally do what's in my best interest; don't you?


----------



## the mama (Mar 1, 2006)

As Americans we are entitled to Life , Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Please don't tell people how many children to have. Yes, I do agree that those with inheiritable diseases, or incompetent due to low IQ (less than 80) should not have children that are almost certain to have problems. Also if you are poor and feed your kids rice and beans, they will be fat.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

beaglebiz said:


> Me too. I know someone who can only feed her kids spaghetti and mac and cheese from a box because vegetables are too expensive. She has money to buy smokes (brand name) and coffee. I offered to have DH rototill her a garden patch (not interested, that's too much work). I just cant figure it out.


OK, so that's one person, but extending this as a generalization of all poor people with children is unfair. 

I am poor with children and do not smoke or drink, and along with helping in the community garden, I have my own garden plot. My main obstacle in that area is that I have no way to haul manure to improve the soil, so it is being built up mostly with free Starbucks coffee grounds. :-/ Nobody had to rototill it for me, I prepared the ground by hand myself. Our cupboards are full of stuff like lentils, dry beans, tomato paste, rice, oatmeal and whole wheat pasta.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

whiskeylivewire said:


> People say we shouldn't rely on the government, but on our churches and families. What do you do when the churches and your family are broke as well? Yes, we are on food stamps because right now with 4 kids aged 11-4 and I am taking care of them and taking 15 hours of college classes.


May God bless you abundantly and prosper you in your lives.

Many times people don't realize that when we point at others to scorn, we always have four fingers pointing right back at us. We are measured with the stick we choose to measure with, and nobody is without sin of some sort. Judge not that ye be not judged.

It's sad that anyone here would feel scorned or judged by others who use the boards. It doesn't point to the fault of those scorned, but to the scorners. I'm so sorry if anyone has felt attacked.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> I am very much against the people who make it possible for folks to subsist indefinitely on welfare.
> 
> As to the recipients themselves -- it may well be in their best interest to accept charity rather than working. *And I generally do what's in my best interest; don't you?*


Not on someone else's dime.:grumble:


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Threads like this never cease to amaze me. We have 5 children. I was 16 when our first son was born. We lived on our own and have made it on our own since day one. It has NOT always been easy and there were times I was encouraged to use food stamps or to apply for WIC, personal choice was NOT to. My husband walked to the next town to work when we had no car for over a year. He walked EVERY day over 20 miles round trip,12 months a year to work as a vineyard manager...we have come a long, long way since then. We own our home, have the farm, take nice vacations, etc....I have NO problem giving those who need it a hand up. I DO have a problem with people judging others because they need help. You dont want parents with marginal incomes having children? Well I firmly believe Mothers who CHOOSE (not have to) but CHOOSE to have children and then plop them in daycare for 40+ hours a week shouldnt have kids!!!!PERIOD!SO who gets to make the rules???
While I firmly believe a child NEEDS to be raised by parents who are loving, intelligent, capable and caring I also believe far too many of us pass judgement on others because we feel as if our way is the ONLY way.
Its a sad statement about todays society when we are willing/wanting to, strip a hard working parent of any government assistance because its coming out of "our pockets". 
Again, I am firmly against a person depending on welfare as a permanent solution, but for those who are using it as a hand up...I am perfectly ok with that. I dont have a problem helping support my neighbor...guess I was just raised a bit different then some here.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Momto5,

I would be interested in hearing what you define as a "hand up". We all have plenty of examples of the slippery slope of government programs. Start with a small defined program and there will be plenty of folks looking to have the program expand to cover them or their pet group.

Personally I prefer to see assistance be private (charitable) and local. Let people decide where they want to see their charitable dollars go. If government weren't sucking up so much I think more people would be in a position to donate more. And the fact that some people wouldn't donate doesn't disturb me a whit. What goes around comes around (or doesn't as the case may be) over time.

Mike


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Mike in Ohio said:


> Momto5,
> 
> I would be interested in hearing what you define as a "hand up". We all have plenty of examples of the slippery slope of government programs. Start with a small defined program and there will be plenty of folks looking to have the program expand to cover them or their pet group.
> 
> ...


Mike, And since you asked in a polite way I will happily accomodate. In my opinion a "hand up" is helping someone who has fallen upon hard times. Food stamps = enough to feed the family and limited to allow purchase of only healthy foods and drink and also allowing them to be used at Farmers Markets and fruit and veggie stands and for purchasing vegetable seeds and plants. Assistance with housing and basic bills i.e. - housing, elec bill, water bill.
Education, if lack thereof is a reason for the person(s) inability to obtain unemployment. Whether that be college courses or job training.
Also necessary medical procedures i.e. - Well child visits, immunizations, serious illness. In return for those things I believe those who recieve this assistance should be REQUIRED to give back....their time would make a HUGE difference in the lives of local elderly, Food Banks, Animal Shelters, etc...
In a perfect world huh???I just dont believe in letting those who have fallen on hard times fall farther, especially those who WANT to help themselves.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Personally, I thoroughly enjoy opportunities to help my neighbors,
but.... no man, nor group of men, by any title, have the right to force anyone to do anything, a.k.a. _compelling one to perform_, without that individual's consent.
If you can be forced, then you are either ignorant of your rights, or you have consented, or you have been set upon by thieves and tyrants.
That said, there are rules, long antecedent to even international law, by which consent can be obtained. Those rules have been largely adhered to by the PTB.
Public schooling, however, has failed to make those old maxims well known to the "unwashed masses".
I don't mean to come across in any manner other than educational.
Any offense that I have given was not intended.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Forerunner is on the correct track.

Momto5, why do you feel it is more appropriate to force others to pay taxes to cover the cost of what YOU (emphasis intended) feel is a hand up vs you convincing others to donate to cover the cost of what you (and those you convince) consider a hand up? 

Why the perceived need for coercion? the simple answer is that it is much easier than trying to convince people to donate for all the various "needs" that have become entitlements.

It is clearly much more cost effective to pay for better insulation in a dwelling (one time cost) than to pay for heating (recurring cost). Paying for heating gives do-gooders warm and fuzzies. 

Why should paying for food be limited to that which you deem healthy? Why not force everyone to eat healthy? We could have the healthy police!

Your requirement that they work in animal shelters and nursing homes smacks of indentured servitude. Do you really think those people are going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while they are working in animal shelters?

Mike


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Mike in Ohio said:


> Forerunner is on the correct track.
> 
> Momto5, why do you feel it is more appropriate to force others to pay taxes to cover the cost of what YOU (emphasis intended) feel is a hand up vs you convincing others to donate to cover the cost of what you (and those you convince) consider a hand up?
> 
> ...


Mike, While I understand your need to play devils advocate, my logic is just that, MINE. Just as there are people here who believe that these programs should be done away with, that is strictly their opinions. Not once did I say that others should be "forced" to do anything, that is YOUR statement. Nor did I say those who choose to recieve help would HAVE to work in the places I stated,YOU said that. I said it would be good ,if in return for receiving these benefits they gave something back to the community. The places I named were examples. I not once said they should "work" in these places. I said it would be good of they were required to donate some of their time i. e volunteer. I also never said that food stamps should be used for "what I deem healthy." What I said is they should be used for healthy foods. Im not sure if your need to place words "in my mouth" comes from the fact that you dont agree with me or if its just another part of the devils advocate coming out.
Its simple really...when you get something, you should give something in return. Reality is, that is one of the many things wrong with society today, very few WANT to give back. To be honest I dont think that everyone on welfare is some low life who feels they are "entitled" to certain things. It is MY OPINION that a roof over ones head, food on the table and medical care are NOT entitlements, but what a person needs to have a chance at becoming sucessful. I dont think paying for heating is about giving "do- gooders" a warm fuzzy feeling, again that is YOUR OPINION. I think that keeping a family warm is an important thing to do, I think as a human being I have some responsibility to help another human being who may be less fortunate. Things like phone, internet, cable TV, cell phones, car payments...those things are NOT necessities. A safe place to lay your head, warmth, food on the table, medical care and helping a person who may be "unemployable" become a success, THOSE are the things that I as a human being, FEEL are important. I dont think ANYONE has the right to force another person to do ANYTHING. I also dont think that as a human being it is ok to watch a fellow human, who may have fallen on hard times suffer. THAT in MY OPINION is inhumane. And if THAT makes me a do-gooder, than I am happy to be one. My children are being raised the same way, if you have more than you need and someone else doesnt, help. Its called compassion, its called caring about something besides yourself and your own existence. And THAT is also MY OPINION. You are certainly entitled to yours.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Momto5,

When you say government should provide this helping hand, where do you think the money comes from to pay for these things? It either comes from taxes or it comes from deficit spending (which is a tax that someone in the future will have to pay). Unless you are going to claim that taxes are voluntary, that is forcing someone else to pay.

Note that I am not against voluntary assistance, just against coerced (through government) support of government assistance.


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Mike in Ohio said:


> Momto5,
> 
> When you say government should provide this helping hand, where do you think the money comes from to pay for these things? It either comes from taxes or it comes from deficit spending (which is a tax that someone in the future will have to pay). Unless you are going to claim that taxes are voluntary, that is forcing someone else to pay.
> 
> Note that I am not against voluntary assistance, just against coerced (through government) support of government assistance.


Im quite aware of where the money comes from and what taxes are for. I just dont have a problem, with portions of my taxes going to support those less fortunate, nor do I have a problem footing the bill for things like the VA. I just dont. If you do, then thats ok. I NEVER claimed taxes were voluntary, but the reality is, we pay them. I am fairly sure that will NOT change at any time in the near future.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Taxes are voluntary.

There are steps that must be taken to become liable for taxes of any kind.
You are not born a "taxpayer".

As for receiving "hand outs" from the government, there is nothing free.
It is taught in some of the more candid sociology classes that the reason government chooses to attract so many to sign up for welfare--of any kind-- is to build a resource pool of "free labor" on a grand scale. Read, _slaves_. Same goes for those who have chosen a life lived deeply in debt. 
Funny thing.... the Bible goes into great detail about not accepting "deceitful meats" 
(read, substance.... and rulers only acquire substance from the life blood and sweat of your neighbor) from a ruler, and admonishes over and over the enslaving nature of debt. The Bible is a great book for those who seek to avoid the pitfalls that lead to slavery to men and "other gods".
But people would rather just talk and read about Jesus.
They somehow get the notion that he came so we could all be oblivious sheep with our own opinions, and not have to research for ourselves the _weightier matters of the law_.

As for government being the only solution, long before men chose to elect a mob to more expediently coerce their neighbor's blood and sweat for their own use, there was charity.... i.e. very, very few slipped through the cracks in any given community.
Excess taxation and regulation have just about squeezed real concern and benevolence toward one's neighbor out of existence.

Everything proceeds according to plan.... and people still trust the gatekeepers.


----------



## oldmanriver (Aug 1, 2004)

because they haave sex see there is the birds and the bee sand well you know


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Taxes are voluntary.
> 
> There are steps that must be taken to become liable for taxes of any kind.
> You are not born a "taxpayer".
> ...


Too many well intentioned people think welfare is a good thing. I see it as a way to control the masses.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> Too many well intentioned people think welfare is a good thing. I see it as a way to control the masses.


Yep. For that check and those food stamps, they got a pretty good grip on what you can do. They give just enough so that entry level jobs aren't much of an improvement, so there's no real incentive to even try. Too much can go wrong. So the welfare recipients generally(not always) tend to continue to live in poverty, on the government dole.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

The suppliers of goods and services make a ton of money off of the exploding population. Overcharging for everything from soup to nuts (literally), pay for that with food stamps. Whatever tax payers that are left will turn that into cash for the fat cats.

Same goes for housing, transportation, medical (abuse) er' I mean care, and hundreds of other services, and goods that are offered to the masses.

Increasing the population is an ELF job, that is E=easy L=lucrative F=fun. Any idiot can do it if they can find another idiot to help. All needs and most wants are guaranteed from now on so why not. You don't even need to be sober, or of legal age. It will still work out for the suppliers.

Employment, even marginal is not required or needed.:goodjob:


----------

