Boards > Pirate's Cove
Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and...
Chief Joseph:
" In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "
No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.
CBWx2:
--- Quote from: Illuminator on November 27, 2012, 10:06:05 AM ---
" In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "
No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.
--- End quote ---
No, it isn't the point. The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour. The point is that unless you want to see an ever increasing number of people receiving government assistance, you need to increase the minimum wage to at least rise along with the rate of inflation.
You are trying to make a different point. Some would call it a "talking point". They would be right. In the real world, people are going to drop out of high school, or opt not to go to college or learn a trade. In the real world, poor people are going to have sex, sometimes unprotected sex, and babies will be the result. If there were any society that existed in the world where nobody did these things, then there wouldn't be anyone working as cashiers or fry cooks.
If you want these people to not need to rely on the government, you need to make self reliance an achievable option. The vast majority of these people aren't going to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, go to college, get their MBA, and go and work in the front office of a fortune 500 company. So the logical option would be to make it so that the jobs that the people who are receiving assistance are likely most qualified for are jobs that they can actually support families on.
No one is arguing that these people deserve to be living in gated communities and driving a Volvo SUV. But at least making enough money to realistically be able to afford rent, food, clothes, some kind of transportation to get back and forth to work, utilities, and daycare so that they can actually work full time even if they have kids, seems like a good place to start. Heaven forbid if that means that a Big Mac might cost a few extra cents.
wreck ship:
--- Quote from: CBWx2 on November 27, 2012, 05:27:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Illuminator on November 27, 2012, 10:06:05 AM ---
" In an effort to end this pointless back and forth, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant to the point. "
No, it's precisely the point. Trying to remove the consequences of acting irresponsibly, while at the same time removing the rewards for acting responsibly, pushes the affected populace towards irresponsibility. But then that's precisely what the Democrats want, a nation of irresponsible voters forced to rely on them.
--- End quote ---
No, it isn't the point. The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour. The point is that unless you want to see an ever increasing number of people receiving government assistance, you need to increase the minimum wage to at least rise along with the rate of inflation.
You are trying to make a different point. Some would call it a "talking point". They would be right. In the real world, people are going to drop out of high school, or opt not to go to college or learn a trade. In the real world, poor people are going to have sex, sometimes unprotected sex, and babies will be the result. If there were any society that existed in the world where nobody did these things, then there wouldn't be anyone working as cashiers or fry cooks.
If you want these people to not need to rely on the government, you need to make self reliance a viable option. The vast majority of these people aren't going to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, go to college, get their MBA, and go and work in the front office of a fortune 500 company. So the logical option would be to make it so that the jobs that the people who are receiving assistance are likely most qualified for are jobs that they can actually support families on.
No one is arguing that these people deserve to be living in gated communities and driving a Volvo SUV. But at least making enough money to realistically be able to afford rent, food, clothes, some kind of transportation to get back and forth to work, utilities, and daycare so that they can actually work full time even if they have kids, seems like a good place to start. Heaven forbid if that means that a Big Mac might cost a few extra cents.
--- End quote ---
+1. you should have used gifs and pics as dilluminate struggles with reading comprehension
Chief Joseph:
" The point is that it is an impossibility to support yourself, much less a family, on a job that pays $7.25 an hour."
It's probably not a good idea to start a family you can't support then, is it? But nothing to worry about if the load for your irresponsible decisions falls on other people's shoulders.
Chief Joseph:
The poor aren't breeding fast enough?
Subsidize them!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version