Why do leftists always invoke 'starving children' when talking about welfare?

Getting a job = solving poverty

 

Very good point.

Why would anyone donate to charities to help the poor when the government is providing for them already? Take away that government assisstance and you will see a huge jump in charitable donations to help the needy.

 

How well does that work for "surplus" labor or the Great Depression? Is the unemployment rate below one percent?

 

Simple answer: - And if the parents cannot get a job? Or choose not to?

Do we let those children go hungry because of the mistakes of the parents?

Do we force those children to get jobs themselves, and forgo the education that would allow them to get ahead in life?

 

It does not force the parent to take care of their kids unless they actually CARE for their kids. What do you do in the situation where the parent does NOT care for their kids?

Then, we end up having to pay more for their kids, and there is no law stopping the parent from having even MORE kids to keep the cycle going.

 

I was on Food Stamps in the early 80s for a year or so, off and on. I couldnt find a permanent job and had five kids. I obediantly obeyed the rules and regulations of the system and reported any money I received for any work I found, therefore, my Food Stamp allotment went up and down. My wife cooked good meals making soups, stews, casseroles and, occasionally, chicken dinner. We ate better than we had when we had a permanent, good paying job. My wife and I both gained a little weight. When the economy where I lived got straightened out, I got a job as a welfare fraud investigator. I was in charge of a 12 county area in my state and worked my butt off. What we actually needed was one investigator in each county but the bureaucrats are too stupid to do the right thing. My office constantly fought the welfare agency I worked for. Their philosophy is to give the money out and not care about its proper use. It was a constant fight just to do my job and initiative was frowned upon. I saw so much waste it sickened me. I did this for 20 years and when I retired I was a complete burnout. I am totally against welfare now but very much in favor of charities. The stories I could tell you.

 

What about towns who have no churches nor charitable organizations??? They do exist you know.

So, the child should starve? That sure doesn't sound very charitable on your part; but then again, that is a common mindset among most conservatives. "Save the life of the unborn, but once they are born, we could care less whether they live or die" is the rallying cry of many Republicans/Conservatives. Pathetic is what it is.

 

Just bumping this quote again- since the OP seems to be ignoring that this claim of his was squashed for the obvious falsehood it was.

I am just going to assume that every other unsubstantiated claim of his is just as much BS.

 

My white arse!

 

Are you claiming there is a job available for everyone who wants one?

 

Libs ply their melodramatic bs for the benefit of people that haven't the wit to realize that they're being played like fools. The dumbing down of America has made life easy for their strategists.

 

Isn't our current unemployment rate an objective and market based metric?

 

I believe his point was that there haven't been children who have starved because there is no food available to them. Whether or not the childs parents actually provided them with food is a different matter. As I pointed out earlier, during even the Great Depression very few people went hungry because there was simply no food it was that they didn't have access to it.

Sure if a parent keeps their kid locked up and doesn't feed them they will starve but its not because there is no food in America.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes there is. Its just a matter of not having any set standards and finding it. Plenty of work being a janitor or picking fruit in the fields if you want it.

 

Its because people refuse to take certain types of jobs and they don't have to when the government bails them out. Take away that government safety net and these primadonna's will take whatever work is available to them.

Then when you realize that you absolutely hate your job you will go out and improve your skillset so you can get a better job. That's the way its supposed to work.

What the left is saying is that you don't need to work jobs you don't want or improve youself because we'll take care of you as long as you keep voting for us.

 

Let's put it this way, our elected representatives even gave business tax incentives to bring our unemployment rate down; what happened to those "funds"?

 

Dude, corporate welfare even has paid multimillion dollar bonuses; why should anyone want to work harder when working "smarter" is what is "rewarded" in more developed economies? Are you claiming the least wealthy should prefer to work in turn of the last century, Iron Mill Towns in our modern Information Age where we already know it only takes money to make money, not a work ethic or learning how to fish as was the case in the Iron Age.

 

True there is no shortage of food, but if you cannot pay it, you cannot eat. That is the reality.

You have many things to choose, but you must afford it, and many people cannot. It is capitalism.

Welfare has given the poor people to not having to worry for the food and that give to them more chances to gain a better future. They don't have to worry for basic things, so they have more freedom and more time to spend in other questions.

 

Like, why would anyone believe that a War on Poverty for over thirty years is any substitute for actually solving simple poverty in our republic?

 

The problem is that it is not giving them a better future. They are not taking advantage of this very generous advantage and using it to better themselves. They are milking it for as long as possible. We see this with people simply moving onto disability when their unemployment runs out.

There is absolutely no reason for someone to be on welfare for 2 years. NONE

If what you claimed was true then we would see the welfare numbers shrinking, instead they are exploding. Does that not tell you anything? People are more resourceful then you give them credit for, but that's always been a fault of the left.

Take away that safety net and people will find ways to survive. Its well established that people will often take the easiest routes available to them and welfare is an extremely easy route.

 

We have to compensate for an extra-Constitutional drug war on a for profit basis, somehow.

 

That's an awfully big net you're casting there. Care to back it up?