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

Not so sure I can agree with your statement. Because; there is a purpose for welfare and that purpose is to help those with disability that keeps them from working and debilitating diseases. But unfortunately we spend way too much to support those that are able to work but that are under-educated or can't afford to work due to the inability to find a job that pays for everyday cost of living. These are the individuals we need to target, help and use our tax dollars to assist.

 

Or you're lying about it because you couldn't offer a single rebuttal.

 

I haven't seen a hungry child, which means it never happens!

This is the idiocy of the right.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was $50 month it likely had a 5-10k deductible; if you'd actually had to use it due to disease, accident, or illness, you would have found yourself in major medical debt that you would have never climbed out of with your $10 of savings a month.

You have no idea how lucky you were.

 

It is how they elicit an emotional reaction from the self righteous, immoral, rightist, who doesn't want to pay higher taxes for welfare queens.

Very effective argument, because kids provide an easy welfare check and relations feels good.

So they multiply with the same socialist ideology in a democracy, and soon their votes outnumber that is why we need more Mexicans in this country.

 

What facilitated the baby boom?

 

Decent people talk about starving children because you want to starve other people's children to fill your fat bellies, obviously. Next question.

 

Not sure I can agree with your statement, because there is something better than welfare and it's called charity. The US is the most charitable country on the face of the earth. Also, there's something called family. Before there was welfare there was family. You took care of your own. Welfare has destroyed that aspect of family. Now it's "Let the government do it. I need electronic devices and toys, etc.".

Welfare breeds the "entitlement" mentality. "I am entitled to sit on my fat butt and suck on the government's teat instead of earning my own way in the world." "Why should I use my own money for food when I can use the government's money and save mine for toys (electronics) drugs and booze." Oh yeah, those food stamps given me to feed my children? I trade them for cash to buy drugs, cigarettes and booze. Silly bleeding hear liberals. Gimme more, I want more.

 

I feel your pain - and I'm not being facetious. We ate boiled potatoes, peanut butter, and, well, I'll spare the tearful details. We survived by making food stamps work to buy the cheapest "food" we could find.

So I, as a right wing and sometimes left wing (depending) nut, still appreciate and am quite thankful that food stamps were available. We lived in a horrible dump of trailer for minimal rent so we didn't have any assistance in that regard. Fortunately, we didn't require any medical attention during those years. But, in our case, food stamps helped us survive and helped me not have to beg, borrow, or most importantly, STEAL. The "safety net" was no hammock for us and it was a real God-send! Anyone that thinks there aren't people struggling to survive in America are fools. That's my Left side being thankful.

However, my Right side must admit that our condition was one helluva motivation to doing everything possible to earn more money and get the F out of that situation! I never could afford to go back to school and I never was able to apply my math/physics interests until a decade of hand-to-mouth struggle later. It was mason tending and fuk-yer-back-up-royally construction work, studying on my own and acquiring a marketable skill. As a result I have NO pity for a many of my old poverty-pals that I've become acquainted with over the years. These are the ones that have conditioned themselves by their own laziness to suck off the system like a bunch of pathetic parasites. The only justice in it is, they are STILL wallowing in their sorry-ass mess of lives while I'm now making $60K, sometimes even $70K, programming industrial robots. They are still plying their sob stories and receiving their subsidies.

I know how to use the safety net to survive. I also know how tempting it can be for some to say fukit and climb into that pathetic hammock. I don't mind a bit being taxed for that safety net either!. But ya better stop helping people climb into that hammock of a miserably wasted life just so some political party's candidates' can enhance their electability! You'll find no sympathy for THAT (*)(*)(*)(*) in my house.

 

I'm amused at the unintentional irony of this post, which slams a left wing emotional tactic involving welfare (starving children) by invoking a right wing emotional tactic (welfare queens / welfare fraud). Trying to sum up the welfare system by implying it does nothing but support the apparently undeserving is no better than implying that massive suffering of children will occur if the welfare system is changed in the slightest.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_starvation_each_year_in_America

Technically, nobody dies of 'starvation' any more in the US, so it's kind of hard to research. Thanks to Republicans, the word has been stricken from the record. Republicans prefer to call it "food challenged", "caloric insufficiency", "death by caloric deficit", s**t like that.

 

If the parents in that scenario have so little money that their kid can only afford to eat once every 2-3 days, then where is the money going?

If the parents are working, then why aren't they feeding their kids? Are they spending the money on drugs or something? They should be charged with child neglect?

If the parents aren't working, then they would qualify for welfare, so again where is the welfare money going?

The scenario about a kid 'having to rely on school lunches' because he only eats every 2-3 days just doesn't add up.

 

There you go again, just outright lying. The Republicans have changed nothing. Prove that any children have died of strvation as a direct result from not receiving assistance from the government. I worked in the welfare system, I saw children die from malnutrition. There parents recived Food Stamps and traded them for drugs, cigarettes, booze, prostitution, etc. Maybe you should try to tell the truth for a change?

 

But currently, most charities are being overrun, and many do not have the resources to meet the needs of the sheer number of people that are trying to use their services.

What do you do when charities are not enough?

 

Who's to say the parent is not blowing the money on something other than their kid?

Unless you actually buy the food for the parent and stock it into their fridge, they ultimatley decide what their money, wheather it come from a job or from welfare, is spent on.

And sadly, some parents just do not care for their children at all and have no problems letting them go hungry while they buy the newest toys, go to bars and restaraunts, and party.

Or do you think those type of people do not exist?

 

If a person has multiple children on poverty level income then they've pretty much screwed themselves into a lifetime of welfare dependency. However this is why having children you can't afford on your own is a mistake to begin with.

So choosing to have multiple children knowing you won't be able to afford them, then blaming "Republicans" or "corporations" for your 'poverty', like it's a badge of honor is pretty immature.

I remember reading once that the average net cost for each child a person has amounts to $700 more per month, so obviously it's a foolish decision to have children unless you can afford the extra $700 per month, per kid, on top of what you need to live comfortably for yourself.

I actually know a guy who has no HS diploma or GED, is currently unemployed and living with his parents, who said he was trying to have a kid with his girlfriend - I guess he doesn't seem to have a problem with the fact that it'd be either his/her parents or the state paying for the kid rather than him.

How were you working for less than minimum wage? Are you a legal immigrant?

You can get broad form liability insurance for less than $70 per month, and that's with violations on your driving record - when I was younger I had violations that caused my liability only insurance to go up initially to $200 per month, so I switched to broad form

If you have full coverage, collision,etc then you don't need that. In fact you'd probably pay more per year in insurance than your car is even worth, if your car is old and used. You'd be better off buying a very inexpensive used car with the bare bones insurance, and doing repairs as they come up. Hell, if it was a choice between going hungry and car insurance, I'd even drop my insurance to buy food and risk getting at ticket.

Ah so taxes is the real reason that people are in poverty.

 

You call it "die from malnutrition", I call it "starvation". So what's your fricking point? There IS starvation in America.

 

How well did that work last millennium or even during the Great Depression?

 

You are confusing "luxury" with equality of privileges and immunities under our republican form of government where corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

Why does the right insist on the "moral turpitude" of bearing false witness to a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws, but only for the least wealthy?

 

Private charities suffer when government(s) confiscate too much money from the citizenry....
People assume an "I gave at the office" attitude, or simply develop contempt for the "the poor"

Phil Mickelson, a very charitable person, is currently weighing his options to escape California because of the recent state income tax hike....a hike that increases his annual tax liability about 2 million dollars. That's a potential 2 million dollars.... that he could disseminate to local charities of his choice...gone.

 

Sorry, I am too busy just living to take action just yet. And things are not nearly bad enough for me to join bloody revolution.

But I am surprised the rich are not acting, as if the poor really are parasites as they claim, would it not be better to extermanate them now, while you are still strong, then to wait until you are weak and barely able to do it?

 

Yet, the right still believes we can wage "war" on multiple fronts while lowering our taxes.

 

You may be right. But at this point, nothing will change government wise. Not until the last possible minute at least.

In the mean time, you still have the problem of charaties not having enough resources to help all of the people that need their services. You also have all the bad things that come with people that are not able to make enough money to support themselves not being able to get assistance to supplement their income, if they even have income.

 

Private charity can never solve, even simple poverty; public sector intervention in the market for labor can.

 

You're advocating state ownership over means of production or economic fascism.....was that your intent?