How would Bernie help a woman like this?

[phipps66]

God Bless America

 

[Gazwald]

How can someone watch those kids living in third world conditions and be pro-life?

 

[VivaRevolution]

The idea of the state stealing kids from their parents just because the parents are poor is pretty sickening to me. I'd hope that people would literally revolt against that kind of tyranny.

And the issue here is the kids (who make up a quarter of all Americans in pre-transfer poverty and a fifth of all Americans in post-transfer poverty). Kids aren't generally expected or able to make above-poverty-level wages. The solution to child poverty (like the solution to poverty in general) is to transfer more money to them.

Well jack it looks like we found a place you are further left than me.

You think it is tyranny to remove the kids from the home. I think it is irresponsible to allow those kids to have that women as a their sole role model.

And as I said, I support giving a helping hand, I support giving a helping hand up, I just don't support enabling a lifetime of bad decisions.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

They should just eat each other.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

But handouts are essential for this kind of thing. The idea that 15 kids should suffer because their mother doesn't make a lot of market income is cruel and stupid (we all share a country with those 15 kids), and I doubt that's something that Sanders would support. Further, the idea that we can somehow lift that women's market income to above-poverty levels is also ridiculous. Transfers are the way to go.

She dosent make any fucking income, other then shitting out kids fathered by a scumbag criminal for a welfare cheque.

 

[Lustercross]

People are so emotional. Looking strictly at numbers, moochers are a minority. Most of the people that get government aid, legitimately use it to pick themselves up and out of the rut they are in. I think corporate welfare is a bigger concern since it is a huge amount.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well jack it looks like we found a place you are further left than me.

You think it is tyranny to remove the kids from the home. I think it is irresponsible to allow those kids to have that women as a their sole role model.

And as I said, I support giving a helping hand, I support giving a helping hand up, I just don't support enabling a lifetime of bad decisions.

It's not one issue. It's *the* issue if you're talking about how you classify someone.

People are so emotional. Looking strictly at numbers, moochers are a minority. Most of the people that get government aid, legitimately use it to pick themselves up and out of the rut they are in. I think corporate welfare is a bigger concern since it is a huge amount.

Actually, most of the people that get significant transfer income aren't using it to "pick themselves up and out of (a rut)." It's mostly senior citizens (SS), children, and disabled people who are relying on gov't aid to stay out of poverty. Temporarily unemployed healthy adults get a very small portion of total transfer income.

I understand the political reasons left-wing politicians try to frame it in those terms, but it actually harms the cause more than helps it. The reality is that poverty in the first world is mostly about disability and life cycles (in addition to the elderly and children, who make up more than half of people in pre-transfer poverty in the first world, young adults who are either in college or just beginning their careers are a big group), and in turn, using a market to distribute national income is the cause of those groups not having enough to live on. If you want to get serious about eliminating poverty, the focus has to be transfer income.

 

[BVG]

Bernie would probably send over social service agencies to break them up into adoption agencies...

 

[Lustercross]

It's not one issue. It's *the* issue if you're talking about how you classify someone.



Actually, most of the people that get significant transfer income aren't using it to "pick themselves up and out of (a rut)." It's mostly senior citizens (SS), children, and disabled people who are relying on gov't aid to stay out of poverty. Temporarily unemployed healthy adults get a very small portion of total transfer income.

I understand the political reasons left-wing politicians try to frame it in those terms, but it actually harms the cause more than helps it. The reality is that poverty in the first world is mostly about disability and life cycles (in addition to the elderly and children, who make up more than half of people in pre-transfer poverty in the first world, young adults who are either in college or just beginning their careers are a big group), and in turn, using a market to distribute national income is the cause of those groups not having enough to live on. If you want to get serious about eliminating poverty, the focus has to be transfer income.

Thank you for informing me on that. Either way, I don't see a strong social safety net as a bad thing.

 

[Senkoy]

Serious question: Why can't we make the same argument regarding the "forced donations" that make tax payers fund the military?

How is my having to help pay for the war in Iraq, an effort I didn't, personally, approve of, any different than your having to help pay for an effort you don't approve of - the care and feeding of children born to uneducated, poor mothers?

I think the difference here is that it's possible most people would opt not to pay taxes for a military, and then when we're getting taken over, it's too late to change our mind.

I do agree, however, that we should have more of a say as to what wars we participate in. Though it can get murky because maybe there is classified information that they can't reveal because it would put us at a disadvantage that would otherwise convince us the war is a good idea. I do think you make a good point though.

 

[Renard]

People are so emotional. Looking strictly at numbers, moochers are a minority. Most of the people that get government aid, legitimately use it to pick themselves up and out of the rut they are in. I think corporate welfare is a bigger concern since it is a huge amount.

Corporate welfare is objectively a bigger issue. But since we're on this subject it's interesting that since the 1960s, when the welfare policies were originally introduced, black children born out of wedlock went from 8% to 73%. The evidence suggests that being brought up with only one parent on welfare is very detrimental to children. In a roundabout way we might improve their situation by reducing welfare or modifying welfare so that married or cohabiting couples receive more money than singles, thus creating an economic incentive for black Americans to form stable family units which would eventually lead to their better success.

 

[Senkoy]

Are you proposing that this family, and others like it, be executed?

If not, I don't think you're as analytically-minded as you think you are.

No, I'm proposing they are left to fend off for themselves. They can do it by asking people for handouts and those that want to give it to them can so willingly. If it's not enough, then too bad. If you can't make it, you shouldn't make it.

You actually seem to believe that what's best for you personally (and you haven't thought too deeply about even that) supersedes what's best for humanity. And you're not sufficiently analytical about "the gene pool" either.

How is it best for me personally if I want my tax dollars to go to what benefits everyone, like infrastructure instead of parasites. Feeding these people is a waste of money.

In reality, those kids (and the rest of the one-fourth of all kids in America who are in poverty pre-transfer) will grow up and become part of adult society. It's in everyone's interest that they get a chance to maximize their potential.

Yes, that is a good point. In the end it's better to give them an education instead of letting them run amok committing crimes and ending up in prison. It's still BS that food from my children's table is to be taken to give to these kids because their irresponsible parents couldn't.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Anyone encouraging monetary transfers to the poor but not actually donating any of their own net funds to this woman is a hypocrite.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, that is a good point. In the end it's better to give them an education instead of letting them run amok committing crimes and ending up in prison. It's still BS that food from my children's table is to be taken to give to these kids because their irresponsible parents couldn't.

If your kids are going hungry, I would also advocate that you get assistance.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Anyone encouraging monetary transfers to the poor but not actually donating any of their own net funds to this woman is a hypocrite.

The fact is, if I donated even just $20 to every impoverished individual I see or read about in the media I would literally be perpetually broke and homeless.

The reason intelligent and compassionate people support a social safety net is because they understand it's a more efficient, effective and comprehensive way of delivering resources to the poor than is a higgeldy-piggeldy process of individual charity.

We all have lives to live, responsibilities to meet and only so many hours in a day. That's why I'm happy to let a percentage of my income fund a department whose sole task is to identify need and supply aid. It is the resource equivalent of the fire department.

Beyond that, I donate monies to situations I encounter in my own, local, personal circle of awareness. And I'm sure other taxpayers do the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The fact is, if I donated even just $20 to every impoverished individual I see or read about in the media I would literally be perpetually broke and homeless.

The reason intelligent and compassionate people support a social safety net is because they understand it's a more efficient, effective and comprehensive way of delivering resources to the poor than is a higgeldy-piggeldy process of individual charity.

We all have lives to live, responsibilities to meet and only so many hours in a day. That's why I'm happy to let a percentage of my income fund a department whose sole task is to identify need and supply aid. It is the resource equivalent of the fire department.

Beyond that, I donate monies to situations I encounter in my own, local, personal circle of awareness. And I'm sure other taxpayers do the same.

All of that, plus I don't think that poor people should have to rely the whims of higher-income people. I know people hate one of the words in this sentence, but people living in a country as rich as America should be entitled to having their basic needs met.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The fact is, if I donated even just $20 to every impoverished individual I see or read about in the media I would literally be perpetually broke and homeless.

The reason intelligent and compassionate people support a social safety net is because they understand it's a more efficient, effective and comprehensive way of delivering resources to the poor than is a higgeldy-piggeldy process of individual charity.

We all have lives to live, responsibilities to meet and only so many hours in a day. That's why I'm happy to let a percentage of my income fund a department whose sole task is to identify need and supply aid. It is the resource equivalent of the fire department.

Beyond that, I donate monies to situations I encounter in my own, local, personal circle of awareness. And I'm sure other taxpayers do the same.

And that's your prerogative to support the bottom rung and like organ donation, people should be to able to opt in or out of programs to support. Just because you see a value in helping people like this does not mean I should have to pay a percentage of my income to follow suit.

At least fire services, police, EMS have a value add for me; this women and people like her do nothing but drain the resources and just because her and her children have the same birth country does not mean i have any obligations to help her in any way.

If people want to pay a higher percentage of their taxes to fund these people, they should be free to do so. If people do not, they should be free to opt out.

 

[ehtheist]

The fact is, if I donated even just $20 to every impoverished individual I see or read about in the media I would literally be perpetually broke and homeless.

The reason intelligent and compassionate people support a social safety net is because they understand it's a more efficient, effective and comprehensive way of delivering resources to the poor than is a higgeldy-piggeldy process of individual charity.

We all have lives to live, responsibilities to meet and only so many hours in a day. That's why I'm happy to let a percentage of my income fund a department whose sole task is to identify need and supply aid. It is the resource equivalent of the fire department.

Beyond that, I donate monies to situations I encounter in my own, local, personal circle of awareness. And I'm sure other taxpayers do the same.

Is there actually conclusive evidence to show that a social safety net is a more efficient way to delivering resources to the poor? More far reaching yes, and possibly a more effective way, depending on your definition of effective, but efficient... I don't know. When I was doing soup kitchen work, efficiency was pretty spot on. Everyone volunteering cooks pots of pre-determined stews and soups and brings them in, then serves. There essentially weren't middle men, and any sort of state run welfare program is loaded with middle men, bureaucracy, and all sorts of money sinks.

What's more, if more people donated their time and personal resources which they directly oversee and participate in, the argument of "far reaching" diminishes greatly. Problem is, people just don't do it - so of course it's not far reaching. Well go figure, if you're not out actually helping volunteer efforts to help the poor in your community, you're the reason they aren't reaching far.

People used to hate me because I used to harp on the line of "take one time you would treat yourself a month and spend the time and money you were going to devote to yourself and direct it towards helping the needy in a tangible way, and do it directly." The people who actually even take this lax measure are few and far between. Say what you will, but welfare wouldn't be nearly as necessary if people weren't so self indulgent, and welfare becomes a way to pass the buck of helping your fellow man without needing to get down and dirty. Unfortunately, as soon as you get the government at the helm, it becomes a black hole where money becomes lost forever. Welfare is a necessary evil in a society where apathy for the poor reigns .

 

[Jack V Savage]

And that's your prerogative to support the bottom rung and like organ donation, people should be to able to opt in or out of programs to support. Just because you see a value in helping people like this does not mean I should have to pay a percentage of my income to follow suit.

At least fire services, police, EMS have a value add for me; this women and people like her do nothing but drain the resources and just because her and her children have the same birth country does not mean i have any obligations to help her in any way.

If people want to pay a higher percentage of their taxes to fund these people, they should be free to do so. If people do not, they should be free to opt out.

That's fine as long as the gov't stops getting involved in property or contract enforcement. You don't get to opt out of a system of private ownership of land.

 

[ehtheist]

I know people hate one of the words in this sentence, but people living in a country as rich as America should be entitled to having their basic needs met.

Yeah, red flag, right there. Now, who will come charging in? Couldn't have picked a different word to make your point?