What About OUR Children?

What in gods name are you talking about. We treat our poor so well in this country that they are perfectly content being poor. As liberals enable them they are not only content they are so content they lose their drive to work, be a father to their children, or really do anything productive for society. Liberals are to blame for this and no one else. Chicago and Detroit are swimming in decades of liberal rule and they are cesspools of society. They have had billions thrown at them and the thanks they get are high murder rates and run down neighborhoods. But liberals get the vote and that is really all that matters. And as a bonus you get to blame the cesspools on conservatives and the liberal press doesn't call them on it.

Poor people being perfectly content to be poor has to be one of the most ignorant and blind to the truth statements on this board and that's saying something.

Blame, blame, blame. Is that all you know how to do ugly. It's always someone else's fault isn't it?

"But liberals get the vote and that is really all that matters."

Of the top 10 states that receive the most welfare 6 voted conservative in 2012. I am sorry that the facts do not align with the reality that you wish were true.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-mo...

Conservatives are the "moocher-majority" it appears.

What that has to do with anything I am not sure. Liberals enjoy creating non tax payers that turn around and support them in return for the handouts they receive. I am sure in the states you mention that the vast majority of those on welfare voted for B Hussein Obama. The vast majority. B Hussein Obama won handily. So what you stated makes no sense at all as it relates to my argument. Are you sure your in college? If so, please take some time to attend a remedial debate seminar.

It actually makes perfect sense you are simply too blinded by your self-righteous indignation to understand. Think about it ugly, the majority of "non-tax payers" reside in conservative states. This is a fact, and it requires a recalibration of the 'liberal welfare vote' argument you spout (incorrectly, but with sublime passion). You see, in the states I mentioned the vast majority of everyone, including those on welfare, voted for Romney, despite his best attempts at insulting them during the campaign.

Why these conservatives vote against their interests, we can only speculate. Although researchers have demonstrated that adults with low-IQs tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, so that may explain part of this phenomenon. The point though is that "creating non-tax payers" is something that the GOP does in greater numbers than Dems. It is simply what the data says.

Fact. The date clearly shows that liberals rely on welfare recipients to go to the polls and vote them into office to keep the money train rolling. I am not sure what you are smoking.

Benevolus,

You are either dishonest or ill-informed. You are using a typical straw-man spin. It's funny how many liberal extremists have cited the same article you have, equally as falsely.

Perhaps you are too blinded by your self-righteous sense of intellectual superiority to read and understand?

The article you post doesn't address "welfare" as you spout (incorrectly, but with sublime contempt). Instead it addresses federal spending. Unsurprisingly the article points out that the conservative states, as well as liberal ones, on that list are generally there because of defense and other government spending such as wages and employee benefits. It also mentions other large expenditures such as Medicare and farm subsidies. I realize the left has spend a large amount of effort trying to convince us that "corporate welfare" is the root of all evil but this effort to deflect the conversation is transparent.

Here is a more accurate list of states with high welfare expenditures. I'm sorry, the facts don't align with the reality that you wish were true.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/The_Biggest_US_Welfare_States

SW,

In the minds of many posters on this board, any monetary benefit from the government is welfare. For example, it has been argued that a stimulus package is welfare, a tax break (or not paying federal income tax) it has likewise been argued, is welfare as well. So the argument works both ways.

I am certain that is not convenient to your weak attempt at an argument, but if federal expenditures writ large are generally thought of by conservative posters here as welfare, then my list is perfectly admissible.

I stand by my comments in their entirety.

Benevolus,

Do you think federal expenditures are all welfare?

Informal poll of conservative posters:

Is defense spending welfare? I'd appreciate your response.

SW,

Where this argument is concerned what I think doesn't matter. What matters is that if we use the prevailing logic around here, then any form of federal assistance whatsoever, whether it is stimulus money, bank bailouts, buying defense contracts to boost employment in a struggling state, paying farmers not to work, etc., are all a part of some vast liberal conspiracy to make people dependent on the gov't in order to earn votes. That logic requires a broader definition of welfare than the one your link provides. This also means the data suggest that regarding the top ten "welfare states", federal money goes predominantly to red states.

You and I might agree that not ALL federal expenditures are welfare, per se. Rather, how define welfare matters. But if you want to try to convince your fellow conservatives around here that not all government outlays are handouts, and that some handouts do as they were intended (see: Paul Ryan), and that some handouts are even beneficial to the economy, be my guest. You will probably be labelled a socialist/Marxist/Maoist/etc.

SW,

"Is defense spending welfare? I'd appreciate your response."

Why do you think Bobby Jindal came out with his "stop being the stupid party" speech? Guess what happens to ole' Bob if the US goes over the fiscal cliff because of GOP recalcitrance?

How about major cuts to Louisiana's economy where:

Federal contract spending = $2,720,411,000

Department of Defense spending = $1,772,379,000

If infrastructure spending such as research and manufacturing of wind, solar, and other renewable energy are liberal conspiracies aimed at keeping people on the government dole, the same must be true of Conservative spending on defense in conservative states. Right? Right?

[Crickets...]

Defense spending is not welfare. I am quite happy to pay taxes for the military, roads, care of those who absolutely can't care for themselves, and that is about it. None of this is welfare in my opinion but necessary government spending. Most of those on welfare simply are slackers taking advantage of a system that treats them so well they are content not to try to better themselves. Meanwhile the debt spirals. SW, benny is clearly dishonest. Mini could be ill informed or ill equiped. benny knows better but he prefers to lie rather than face the truth about the current state of affairs caused by liberalism.

Benevolus,

I'll try to make this short, so you have time to make it to your next spin class, I hear it's an amazing workout.

I want to make sure I've got this straight. You said it was welfare because you believe that conservatives on this site would believe it is welfare because you believe that all conservatives believe any government outlay is welfare?

How about just sticking to what you believe. This is where, once again self-righteous delusions of intellectual grandeur appear to be seeping in. How nice that you know what everyone else thinks.

No wonder you will always stand by whatever ridiculous contentions you spout (incorrectly but with sublime contempt). Do you fail to see how this just reaffirms what I said about you on the other blog?

How about we go with the definition of welfare that is generally accepted, or even the definition that was clear from the context of marriedugly and Michael's conversation about the poor?

Although I suppose from your viewpoint you are correct if you are the one making definitions you can't be wrong,I guess that is why you can never admit to being wrong. When you always redefine what people say to fit what you want, how could you be wron?. After all we will just change what up means and now it is down.

Pathetic. Seriously. Laughable.

Benevolus,

"If infrastructure spending such as research and manufacturing of wind, solar, and other renewable energy are liberal conspiracies aimed at keeping people on the government dole, the same must be true of Conservative spending on defense in conservative states."

They are not. I don't know why you would believe this to be so. Why would you think I believe this?

Strawman.

Pathetic. Seriously. Laughable.

SW,

You haven't offered anything for debate, just insults and weak logic. Your admitted insistence on being a child is surfacing again.

Benevolus,

You are the one offering a Straw Man. I disagreed with your attempt to call defense spending welfare then offered a comparable list of welfare spending by state. If that doesn't meet your qualification for debate, it must be because you are changing definitions to suit yourself again.

Benevolus,

One self-identified conservative poster has disagreed with your characterization of the conservative position. Is he wrong or lying in your opinion?

SW,

You asked a leading question meant to elicit a specific answer. You get one reply and then want me to be surprised? Talk about dishonesty. Seriously. Pathetic. Laughable. Childish. Etc.

Benevolus,

Ah so you can read and understand when you want to huh?

What do you think is dishonest about it? You said conservatives here would consider it "welfare" I wanted to check your sources. You are wrong in one case, if other conservatives say it is welfare then you will have support you should be happy, you may yet be right. I realize it is a small sample but since there are few posters here we should get good coverage. Do you have a systematic poll that supports your contention? I'm working with what I have here.

SW,

There is no strawman. I was not saying defense spending is or isn't welfare, I am simply trying to illuminate the inconsistency of the logic many posters exhibit here. Many here have argued that welfare includes other Federal spending endeavors beside just unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.

The point is, if Feds see unemployment is low in Louisiana (it is) and they decide to send stimulus there in the form of defense contracts, that is no different than sending money for shovel ready projects via stimulus packages.

These are equal.So, if one is welfare (as many on the right argue stimulus money is) then because these are equal, they both are welfare, if one is not welfare then both are not.

Be aware, if you hold the position that defense spending isn't welfare, you must also hold the position that stimulus spending isn't welfare...if that is so, your confreres around here will be at your throat, despite their ignorance to their inconsistencies.

SW,

Your "poll" is complete nonsense, you know that the way you framed the question was disingenuous.

If you had asked: "If the Feds send any kind of monetary package to a state with low employment in order to create work for residents in that state, is this welfare?"

...your "poll" question would have been honest. As it is you just being silly.

That should be...

^^^The point is, if Feds see employment is low in Louisiana....

What we have just witnessed sadly is the methods this "educator" benny will soon use to indoctrinate college students into this twisted way of thinking. You just can't debate when one side is willing to lie. The proof though will be the bankruptcy of this nation and the chaos that will follow. The shining light in all of this is that these idiots spewing their liberalism will have no one to blame at the time as it will be obvious what has taken the country to it's knees.

Benevolus,

Your entire argument since you posted that article has been a straw man. No one was talking about stimulus or federal spending on programs such as defense, they were talking about welfare as everyone understands it such as TANF. They were talking about individual poor people.

You then tried to say that people are saying things they aren't and then attacking the "new" "redefined" position. This almost textbook example of a straw man argument is what is so laughable.

Where have the conservatives said that any government spending is welfare?

The only inconsistencies in logic I've seen today is you trying to set up your straw men.

SW,

You are incorrect. I am referencing previous conversations in which posters here have referred to all manner of federal assistance as welfare, including not paying federal income tax, stimulus money, Solarus and subsidies for renewable energy, among others. If you care to check the archives to verify be my guest.

There is no strawman if past arguments on this board suggest a broader definition of welfare than just TANF, etc. Do you agree?

"The only inconsistencies in logic I've seen today is you trying to set up your straw men."

That is because you either a) are not logical yourself and don't know what logic looks like, or b) chose not to see for whatever reason.

What the conservatives here are failing to grasp is that defense spending and stimulus spending are one in the same.

Look no further than WWII and the effect military spending had on the economy for proof of this. In fact, the entire logic of the Bush and Obama stimulus packages were based on the effects large scale government spending had in the past. Whether the spending is on bridges and potholes, or tanks and drones is irrelevant to the economic processes at work.

It is logical to conflate military spending with stimulus spending. A large portion of places with historically high unemployment, in particular, in the south, have a disproportionate number of defense contracts.

http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/sepoct10/life_after_pentagon_dependence_/

If military spending were to be cut in these areas of the south, the economies of these red states would suffer greatly. It is worth noting, if it weren't tanks being built, but solar arrays, wind farms, etc, and the same people earned the same wages, there would be no economic impact.

Thus, stimulus spending is the exact same as military spending. If, AS FOLKS HERE HAVE ARGUED IN THE PAST, stimulus money = government welfare, and if stimulus money is the same as defense spending (which I have demonstrated it is), then we must conclude that defense spending is welfare.

The only logical choice that remains is to conclude that stimulus spending (either on defense or on infrastructure) is not welfare.

That should be: "...and the same people earned the same wages, there would be no negative economic impact if we replaced defense spending with renewable energy spending."

Benevolus,

You have tried to change the conversation yet again.

"If you had asked: 'If the Feds send any kind of monetary package to a state with low employment in order to create work for residents in that state, is this welfare?'"

Why would I ask this? No one was talking about this. The article you posted didn't talk about Feds sending monetary packages to states with low employment to create work so why would that be the logical question?

Benevolus,

"There is no strawman if past arguments on this board suggest a broader definition of welfare than just TANF, etc. Do you agree?"

I do not agree, that is the straw man you are trying to set up. They were talking about the poor and thier welfare when you changed the subject to fit your definition of what you think they should be talking about regarding welfare.

"I am referencing previous conversations in which posters here have referred to all manner of federal assistance as welfare, including not paying federal income tax, stimulus money, Solarus and subsidies for renewable energy, among others. If you care to check the archives to verify be my guest."

First, none of this was part of the conversation until you tried with your straw man tactics to make it so.

Second, none of these programs that you say conservatives believe to be welfare were mentioned in the article that you cited as evidence that conservatives are the real "money-moochers". So you are still being dishonest by trying to suggest this was your argument.

Third, nice form. Make a blanket declaration and when asked to support it say, "you disprove it".

You have the burden of proof for your own claims just as I have the burden of proof for my claims.

SW,

"Why would I ask this? No one was talking about this. The article you posted didn't talk about Feds sending monetary packages to states with low employment to create work so why would that be the logical question?"

You are incorrect. A defense contract is the exact same thing as a monetary package, which is also the exact same thing as a stimulus package. The article mentions defense spending of which defense contracts are a part. Your arguments are failing, sorry to say.

"They were talking about the poor and thier welfare when you changed the subject to fit your definition of what you think they should be talking about regarding welfare."

I didn't change the subject. I brought up past conversations. What folks have argued in the past is fair game, even if they have not brought these arguments up in this particular discussion. I know this is inconvenient to your completely substance-less argument, but this is a fact. I wonder what you might be like as a poster if you actually tried to debate an issue, rather than trying to police (or in Michael's case, childishly tease) those people who you disagree with.

So, once again, there is absolutely no strawman. None. If you wish to obstinately ignore that fact that is up to you. Welfare has been defined on these blogs to include more than just poor individuals. Folks have decried the Obama stimulus, for example, as welfare. I don't really care if you understand this simple fact or not, but not understanding will cause you to continue to make the same illogical mistakes that have had us chasing our tails all afternoon.

I have an advanced statistics exam in the morning, so the last word is yours.

Cheers. And thanks for the conversation.

In most instances, pre-school is paid for, by tax money and state funding. That's the case in my school district and my family took full advantage of it. But many families choose not to. Our kindergarten teachers spend over 70% of their time resources trying to bring the non pre-schooled students up to speed. This is a choice their parents made, and these are children from seemingly poor families.

My junior's high school experience is similar. Though she is ranked #1 in her class, she still has not been able to have one on one conversations with 6 of her 8 teachers. They are too busy adjusting cirriculum to boost the grades of the lower performing students, to the point there are 3 exams given. An exam for the top 25%, an exam for the middle 50%, and another for the bottom 25%. Someone is being cheated, how about all of them. Very sadly, all of the bottom 25% were absent for pre-school back then, and the come from families that themselves are not doing well.

Having police present in our schools should be fully supported. Those cops are already paid for, let's make better use of them.

Has anyone tried to adopt lately? With our oldest, the main concerns with the adoption agencies was keeping dangerous object out of their reach. With our second attempt, my race became an issue, as well as my health. My cholesterol was high as well as my blood sugar. After being on "probation", my age then became a disqualifying item. Then we became pregnant.

Poverty, from my experience, is a choice. We choose to make bad choices that keep ouselves poor. We choose to take easy, but low paying jobs. We choose to spend money on unhealthy things at the expense of our children. We choose pride over the welfare of our families, both by selfishly keeping them and aborting them. We choose to elect public servants that maintain this status quo, instead of fixing it.

Probably off subject, but oh well.

Michael,

You actually used to see advertisement/pleas for funding from foundations for helping american children once upon a time. I haven't seen their advertisements in quite a few years. I am assuming that the young lady you were speading of was an american? There are quite a few volunteer and/or charity foundations of this nature around. You do have to look for them though. And certain close minded people might have to get over the fact that many of them are religious in origin. I am sure that there are some more secular foundations out there too.

I know that this is one of the fears that some have about getting rid of tax credits for charitable donations.

Michael -- thanks for your post. I was recently reading some statistics on children living in poverty in the United States. That number increased from 11 million to 16 million in the past 8 years or so. That's 22% of all children according to the National Center for Children in Poverty, and they're part of families who have to survive on incomes that are below the federal poverty yearly income of $23, 021 for a family of 4. There's some good policy information on this web site for this problem: http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html. It's difficult to reconcile the social fact that United States, a leading world power and economy has so many children living in such a condition.

RJ, it is a simple fact that our poor live so well they don't want a better life. THAT is why the you have the 11 to 16 million increase. Same as food stamps. Why buy food or work when B Hussein Obama will give us everything AND a phone to boot. The sad thing in all of this is when these leeches kill the host our government won't be able to take care of those that truly need taken care of. The irony of liberalism destroying the ability of government to take care of the truly needy runs deep.

Benevolus,

Last word.

"I brought up past conversations"

You have not credited any past conversations, they therefore do not exist for purposes here. I looked and didn't see anyone saying defense contracts or federal employment being "welfare" please show me where they did. You are the only one I've seen claim this.

In your classes is it ok to make a baseless claim and tell people who don't believe you that they have the burden of proving you wrong?

You don't have a track record for honesty around here where I am willing to just take you at your word. I keep thinking about the Norse colonies in America at war with the British that you cited.

Resilient Justice,

I agree children in poverty is a problem in this country. Unfortunately I don't have a solution. However, I think comparing the plight of an American family living on $23,000 and public benefits with the poor in say Africa and then complaining that American's don't support the poor here is an apples/oranges comparison.

This search took 10 seconds...

"But it's all welfare. Farmers, the poor, corporations, banks, underwater homeowners, envirowackos, veterans, the elderly, the ill--all those "vulnerable" people. And the wonder of a nanny state to care for all our needs, cradle to the grave! Go Democrats."

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:23 PM

Benevolus,

Oh, I was looking for defense spending and employee wages like the article mentioned. Silly me not trying to change definitions.

I think most of the conservatives on here would agree that some of that is welfare, but that still doesn't address the things you are saying. You see, you can spout all you want but just because you say something doesn't mean it is so.

Funny how you think one person speaks for all now when earlier you said: "You get one reply and then want me to be surprised? Talk about dishonesty. Seriously. Pathetic. Laughable. Childish. Etc."

Welfare has many different meanings depending on the context of the situation at hand.

Often it is used as a means of degrading a group of individuals due to their economic situation and their need for help. As "marriedugly" proudly said in his post @ 11:19 a.m. -- "The sad thing in all of this is when these leeches kill the host our government won't be able to take care of those that truly need taken care of."

Often it is used as a means of justifying the needs of a group of individuals that don't necessarily need economic help based solely on their immediate financial needs, but more as a means of preventing that group from joining the group mentioned above. As in the disaster declarations declared this past summer due to the drought. The Welfare of this group of citizens impacted by the drought was the driving force to make those declarations.

The manner in which the funds are utilized may be different, but the use of the funds are basically the same -- to help those in a time of need.

SW,

"I was looking for defense spending and employee wages like the article mentioned."

The article mentioned social security, disability, and a host of other things too. You are crossing that line into strawman yourself, SW.

My argument, which has never changed, and in which no definitions have been altered is valid:

If "welfare" (as defined by JohnGalt above, and which I am saying has been defined by others, not by me) consists of a broad array various types of government assistance, then red states are the biggest recipients of welfare.

My second line of argument that has not changed, or been redefined is: Using the prevailing logic of conservatives on this board, the article I cite is admissible. We must logically include defense contracts/defense spending if welfare is going to be defined broadly. This is so because the Feds have awarded these defense contracts disproportionately to places in need of government assistance because of persistently high unemployment. So, if providing assistance is the criteria for federal welfare (per conservative argument here--with John as at least on data point) then defense contracts/spending logically has to be included as welfare.

"Funny how you think one person speaks for all now when earlier you said..."

Your poll is meaningless because the argument isn't whether or not defense spending is welfare, it is that defense spending cannot logically be anything OTHER THAN WELFARE, if we wish to define welfare in broad term (as John does above). Your can only illuminate those posters who contradict themselves or the prevailing conservative logic here.

Furthermore, I provided an honest and valid data point, whereas you were content to create some disingenuous poll that led others to an irrelevant conclusion you thought you could use to undermine my argument.

You should be careful about talking to loudly about honesty yourself, SW.

But at this point I have to wonder if you are being this obtuse on purpose just to get a laugh.

That is...^^^"Your [poll] can only illuminate those posters who contradict themselves or the prevailing conservative logic here."

SW,

Stating that comparing poverty in the US to elsewhere is an apples/orange problem does not rid us of the fact that children here and elsewhere do not have enough to eat or clothing to wear, that they have decaying teeth or can't go to school ready to learn. On what basis and what do you know about other places that make you so sure it's an apple/oranges comparison? My point is that there should not be the degree of poverty there is currently in the United States given the wealth and economic strength that is here. Poverty is poverty, and there are indices that measure it within any region in relation to cost of living and other factors. A much more productive response from you might have been, what are the socioeconomic conditions here and elsewhere that foster childhood and child poverty? How are they addressed here and elsewhere, and how are they different, and what might be ways to reform current policies and revisit ones that clearly haven't worked? Isn't this a less dismissive way to address someone's post and concerns?

Married Ugly,

Suggesting that structural conditions that perpetuate poverty are inherent to people's psyches, i.e., not wanting a better life, is like saying that people want to keep chewing the same piece of gum long after all the yummy flavor has left it. Ummm. No. That is not the case. A deficit model that perpetuates the idea that people are internally predisposed to be "leeches" does not help address issues or solve problems. RJ.

P. S. I do wonder about your name though. Does the name tell us that we should expect that you're predisposed toward anything in particular?

You need to get out more RJ if you think a whole lot of welfare recipients are not content and chatting on thier Obamaphones. My name has nothing to do with me as a careful reading of my wise words would show.

Hungry and Homeless Children live in every city. Their politics don't matter. Their parents are often consumed by demons that the children can describe at a far to young of age. I had a girl in 3rd grade tell me "Their ain't no such thing as Santa Claus". That was after she received nothing at Christmas.

What we should all do is look around and help those in our community that need help. It isn't just the Christian thing to do but the right thing to do.

Hungry children didn't pick their parents. Maybe, by one of your acts of kindness you can mean something to a random kid.

Good job Mike.

Wallis Marsh

You got it all right Wallis until the compliment to mini. If you read his rantings closely he is saying the Republican Party is more interested in taking away one's rights than they are in helping the plight of poor children. This is a lie just like how the Republicans declared a war on women was a lie. The liberals have won the war on how to deal with the poor and it has paid off with record high welfare rolls and food stamp recipients while the conservative approach of self determination and taking responsibility of one's family has been destroyed. Decaying inner cities is the result and this idiot has just blamed the Republican Party for this and said we could care less about children. Good job I think not.

Wallis,

I like your comment, especially this line: "Hungry children didn't pick their parents."

Obama made a reference to a phrase from John Stewart Mill in a speech recently, it was: "accident of birth". The phrase means exactly what you write, many circumstances that impact a child's development are beyond a child's control. Factors like whether they go to school hungry (as RJ points out), or what kind of environment their parents create for them, or what kind of discipline is utilized in the home. There is an economist named Richard Rothstein who wrote a ground-breaking article in 2005 about school reform, in which he demonstrates statistically that out-of-school factors contribute as much to student achievement and success as in-school factors. Sadly, many children are relegated to struggling neighborhoods and failing schools by "accident of birth".

But here we see can foresee trouble. The second we talk about ways to give a hand to the inner-city families who need it most, folks in the burbs (or in rural Nebraska) become enraged and indignant. What they don't see is that their children's economic futures are inextricably tied to the success of our inner-city students.

Two simple facts: 1) over 80% of our population now live in urban areas, and 2) India and China have more honor students than US has students in total. As far as I can see it, there is no way for the US to maintain anything near its current economic position if 50% or more of our poor and minority students are dropping out of high school in many of the nation's cities. Our country needs every possible student to be successful (more than it needs new submarines or M1-A1's, or stealth jets or whatever). If we hope to maintain the quality of life that many have enjoyed in this country for the last century we will have to find realistic ways to improve conditions in our cities. The 'let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps' mentality has failed. We all bear the burden now.

I guess this is why Exxon and Bill Gates and other corporate giants have thrown their hats into the education ring.

The bootstraps method has never been tried benny. Dollars thrown at inner city schools and the parents who send their kids there is what has happened for decades and that is liberalism. Liberalism has failed, not conservatism. If we want to fix the problem we have to somehow change the culture of the inner city and that requires penalties for not having a job and being able bodied, penalties for having 6 kids with 6 different baby daddies, penalties for drug usage while on the government tit, penalties for disability fraud, welfare fraud, food stamp misuse, and the list goes on. When, and I say when, these rules are enforced then the inner city youth might look up to someone other than a gang banger or a baby daddy spewing his seed all over the hood and not taking responsibility for any of the results. If there are no rules Exxon, Gates, and the US taxpayer can throw all the money they want at the problem, it will not go away as history has born out. Liberalism fails inner city children and is tantamount to child abuse on a massive scale.

The bootstraps method is the de facto policy, ugly. It gives callous and abrasive people like you an excuse not to care about what happens to children in our cities. But you haven't thought it through, because what happens when the thinking is 'let's just do nothing and tell them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps' is that more and more folks like you then have an excuse to ignore the problem. What you are blind to is the fact that there are and have been massive historical inequities in the opportunities for inner-city people, specifically minorities, that persist today. Massive inequities.

For example, funding mechanisms for schools are set up such that neighborhoods with large minority populations are almost certain to have worse schooling conditions than the white kids in the suburbs. This is true of not just large cities too. Out McCook way, Lexington Public Schools (15% white) in 2010 got $8800 per pupil, while Gothenberg (93% white) got $9800 per student, and Sumner-Eddyville-Miller Schools (85% white) got $14,500 per student. Four-year cohort graduation rates that year were Sumner-Eddyville-Miller: 85%; Gothenberg: 94%; and Lexington: 80%.

This is true of Omaha vs Millard, District 66, Elkhorn, etc., where disparities in graduation rates and school funding are even starker. This is true in Detroit, Milwaukee and Chicago. The inherent racial biases in our nation's institutions for 200+ years and the purposeful and systemic oppression that our country engaged in during that time have led to massive inequalities for certain ethnic groups. This is a fact.

There is no political party to blame per se, and your ranting about liberals only reveals your profound ignorance in these matters. Luckily, your angry and hateful approach to discussion will always keep your arguments and ideas marginalized. That is the good news.

Thank you Wallis that was the point that I was trying to get across. Unfortunately there are some on here that get so locked into making some kind of hateful, uninformed statement that they are missing the forest for the trees.

Statements about the poor enjoy being poor are just about the most ridiculous stupid comments I may have ever seen on this website. People who say that, and more to the point believe that, have never been poor, do not know any people that are poor, and are simply parroting crap they have heard from some other source and just agree without actually thinking about it.

The children in this country should be the focus of every American and making sure that they actually have a future instead of bickering over taxes, what is and isn't welfare. That isn't the point and it is, in my opinion, just wasted arguments.

It's way past time that the adults in this country actually grow up and start taking responsibility for what is happening in this country instead of simply pointing fingers and blaming a convenient boogey-man.

I know that some who have been making these absurd comments will deny that they are saying anything wrong and will likely attack anyone who actually wants to have an adult conversation about the children in this country. It's a sad indictment but not a surprising one, sadly.

How you can write your original blog and then write your latest response and not see the clear dichotomy of thinking is what is sad for an alleged educator. A partisan yes, educator no. History will prove me right that the best thing for our kids is a stable family, a stable neighborhood, a stable moral belief system, etc. History will also show that liberalism has failed up to today and will continue to fail our children when $$ is the priority and not changing the environment these poor children are being raised in. What is sad that liberals can't see this or don't care. Conservatives love poor children just as much as liberals only conservatives don't enjoy beating their heads against a wall. The expert in these matters in the Reverend Jesse Lee Petersen and he knows what he is talking about. I proudly display a picture of him in my den.

"I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote..." Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen.

Why am I not at all surprised that you highly revere this sexist imbecile? There is no hope for your ideology, ugly. None.

Michael,

You say that it is time for people to take responsibility for what is happening, and I fully agree.

Who or what do you think is responsible for childhood poverty and do you have any ideas to help resolve the problem?

Resilient Justice;

"On what basis and what do you know about other places that make you so sure it's an apple/oranges comparison?"

Purely my own observation and anectodal evidence. If you have evidence to show that they are equal comparisons I'm willing to hear it.

"A much more productive response from you might have been, what are the socioeconomic conditions here and elsewhere that foster childhood and child poverty?"

As I see it, childhood poverty is connected with, parents being unemployed or not earning enough, single parent homes, and race. I think we need to examine why these conditions are connected to poverty. Partisans look only to the connections that align with thier chosen views and often accuse when opposing views are expressed. How can we as a society help these? We can increase wages, but can we force people to raise children in stable two parent homes? Because we can't I don't see there really being much that can be done sadly.

Do you have any suggestions?

I said in "these matters". His views on women voting were not what I referenced. It would be like me stating that Bill Clinton's ideas are horrible due to the fact he oils interns tonsils at the White House.

No it actually would be nothing like that because sexual activity between two consenting adults does not reduce the political rights of half of America's population.

Peterson's views on just about all matters including "these" are borderline insane. He is about as far from "expert" as you can get. I can see why you might like him.

You missed the point on purpose once again benny. While it was wrong to have sex with a very young impressionable intern under the Oval Office desk it did not diminish in any way any of Bill's good ideas. The same for Jesse Lee Peterson. He is over the top on giving women the right to vote but he will be proven spot on in his views of the inner city.

Money doled out will be proven to actually hinder the progress of the poor in getting out of the very environment they languish in. Only if the money was spent on a voluntary relocation program to areas where the culture is not all about government handouts, drugs, and crime would the money have a chance of seeing dividends.

Sexual activity does not diminish a person's ideas. You are right.

I didn't miss the point, it just wasn't a valid comparison. Peterson and his atavistic views color ALL of his ideas, including his thinking about women, the inner-city, religion, and everything else. His picture on your wall is very revealing indeed.

"Money doled out will be proven to actually hinder the progress of the poor in getting out of the very environment they languish in."

I disagree with you regarding "money-doled out". Welfare reduces crime. It is a fact of reality. Not only is this true in the US, but studies in Brazil, Denmark, Britain and elsewhere also reveal a positive correlation between a reduction in crime and intensity of welfare programs. If you really want to start paying more in taxes, and if you really want to bankrupt our cities, take welfare away, then watch crime and incarceration rates sky-rocket, and watch city budgets go deep(er) into the red.

More importantly, respected economists like Richard Rothstein have pointed out that investing (or doling out the money) in community improvements such as raising the minimum wage, providing affordable and stable housing, expanding access to healthcare, and committing to keeping unemployment rates low by attracting industry and businesses, are all ways that might positively affect the high dropout and incarceration rates in many of our cities city.

Rothstein is an expert. Peterson is a zealot.

Rothstein is an idiot. Raising the minimum wage to someone who gets there income from the government does nothing for that person or the community. They have had affordable and stable housing built for them and paid for them for years and the crime and murder rates are still high as is the welfare participation. Healthcare has been free to the poor for a long time so Rothstein strikes out there also. If you could attract business and industry to crime and drug ridden areas it could have an impact I agree but who wants to put a business in these cesspools???? Maybe with the advent of legal pot in Denver there could be a pot bagging industry on Colfax spring up. You should do that mini. You and some of your doper buddies from Duffy's could strike it rich and be able to hand out money to poor children.

Nothing that you wrote is even close to accurate. Your perspective is purposefully ignorant, and your approach is callous and hostile. You occupy an alternate reality, and there is no reason for me to waste my time arguing with you.

I am happy to leave you in error because your ideas will gain no traction with reasonable men and women.

Checkmate benny. I guess you can't make up lies about the decades of existence of medicaid, housing projects, rent assistance, heat assistance, food stamps, WIC, and the endless handouts to the poor as we all know they have existed for decades. There is nothing new in this genius Rothsteins thinking. Tired, old, and liberal, but nothing new. It don't work. If you give someone something they will take it. Plain and simple. I love poor children and want them to get out of their shackles way more than you or mini that much is obvious.

The only game you have won is the race to be most ignorant. You are way ahead there, I must give you credit, ugly.

Assertions that inner-city folks have had access to decent housing and healthcare are based on a lack of knowledge. Projects are notoriously overcrowded, unsafe, and not conducive environments for breeding success. Medicaid has helped, but it is not comprehensive enough to cover the range of health issues, and lack of health education that many families experience in the inner-city.

Those who do work in the inner-city, which are the vast majority of residents, often do so at unreasonably low wages. Raising the minimum wage also contributes to economic solvency and is an alternative to increased welfare assistance. In our most successful cities, there is a policy focus on equitable housing access, better healthcare, attracting business and industry, etc. All of these factors combine to increase graduation rates and lower incarceration rates. These are all statistically verifiable facts.

"Somehow, both Republicans and Democrats have become convinced that schools can be immune to social environments. To make poor children academically proficient, we think only to raise standards, create sanctions for failure, and perhaps provide better teachers, smaller classes or more school time.

These reforms may work. But it is curious that, when we see poor children with lower test scores, we fail to consider if improving conditions of poverty, sometimes at relatively little cost, might also have an impact." Richard Rothstein

Detroit is a shining example of what liberalism does to schools and to governments. And the irony for Rothstein is that economic conditions have become what they are due to liberalism. Liberalism breeds bankruptcy, Detroit is there now, tomorrow it will be California, and then the entire US. And then they will blame the conservatives. Poor children have no future under liberal rule. Liberals hate poor children.

Wrong. Detroit is a shining example of the decline of the Rust Belt, and American manufacturing in general. The free-market explains the problems in Detroit.

After WWII, American industry took off. The US was the world's leading manufacturer of automobiles and related products (namely, steel & rubber). Also, after the war, the young American male population was reduced by quite a lot, but worldwide demand for cars was high, and WWII left the US as the only country intact that was able to fill the national/world's supply needs. In that kind of market, where the labor force is reduced and demand is high, wages were high and places like Detroit, Philly, Baltimore, etc thrived.

By the 1970s, the rest of the world's factories were back online and overseas producers with much lower labor costs were exporting superior cars to the US (think Honda, Toyota-Datsun, VW, etc).

Detroit's auto industry, and steel industries across the nation, suffered enormous losses. In addition, demographic shifts caused by the babyboom meant a surplus in labor forces. Thus, the economic conditions for places like Detroit changed drastically.

High labor costs and foreign competition meant that cities that depended on the production of cars and steel were economically imperiled. Some, like Detroit, never recovered.

Many Conservatives and many Democrats in Michigan have tried to solve the problems faced by shifts in market conditions. Mitt Romney's father is among those who have advocated for various social programs in Detroit to assist families in need. Romney's father is no liberal.

^^^That should be: "The rise of the Rust Belt and the decline of American manufacturing in general."

If these programs spoil people why don't you get on them? THey are out there for everyone to use. Sounds like it may be a step up for you.

If you guys would ever go to a homeless shelter and talk to the kids you would change your tune. The kids parents are addicts or mental patients and the kids are the biggest victims in our society.

It doesn't matter what "safety net" programs are available the parents are to messed up to use them or take advantage of them. A 6 year old only knows the filth and hunger that he or she faces. It breaks my heart when I think about it. The parents are lost for the most part but the kids aren't - yet - and some are damaged for life but some aren't. Just think if your Dad drank to much or "tried" crystal meth for whatever reason and you found yourself as a child living in a car. Does that make you a bad person? Does that mean you aren't worthy of being saved? Through no fault of your own as a Child you find yourself in the worst of the worse.

Wallis

"It doesn't matter what "safety net" programs are available the parents are to messed up to use them or take advantage of them. A 6 year old only knows the filth and hunger that he or she faces. It breaks my heart when I think about it." Wallis

This is where government belongs Wallis as I have already stated and this is right where government is at. Once these situations are identified the kids are removed by government, placed in homes supported by government, and then government tries to help the situation or place the kids permanently somewhere else. I enjoy seeing my tax dollars at work in these type situations.

What sickens me is the bulk of welfare and government funds are not spent on these type situations but spent on able bodied leeches working the system. If you try to reform the system liberals get all up in arms as though all of the unfortunate children are in the former situation and not the latter. This is when the protecting the vote mentality comes in and that is the only real politics in taking care of the poor and it as a game being played by liberals and not conservatives.

Like I said before, liberals hate poor children and they have declared a war on children living in poverty.

Don't feed the troll.

I have determined that liberals now hate women and have declared a war on woman who could be raped. Liberals are saying that women should urinate or vomit on themselves in the course of a rape rather than shoot the lawless rapist between the eyes and end the rape. This is proof liberals hate women and have declared war on women. They appear to love rapists more than women. They appear to hate guns more than they love women. Liberals, you have to snicker at their mentality.

In 2010, Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16. Moreover, 86% of Red States received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. That is almost 9 out of 10 folks!

And it gets worse. Among rural states, 81% received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. In contrast, only 44% of urban states received more federal spending than they paid in taxes.

Something has got to be done to reign in these rural conservatives. They are teet-suckers and they do not pay their way. I am sickened by the fact that I have to pay for these hayseeds to lazily sit around on their decrepit porches whittling toys for their toothless kids.

Federal spending is not welfare spending and you know it you woman hater and poor child hater. Anything to distract from the hatred of children and women I guess. And if it was me you were referring to you just fed me you weak link. I am obviously making points that feel like shots to the ribs if you are so weak as to last only 44 minutes. Your hatred must control you. Maybe you are mini.

That was a warning to others. I am a certified troll handler.

And I didn't say federal spending is welfare spending. The conservatives on this board did. Besides, the fact remains that Red States GET more federal aid than they GIVE in taxes. Moochers. Red State Socialists.

Married Ugly,

I'm glad that you have this forum to express your thoughts and ideas. Perhaps it's because you can't get out into the world more and actually say these things aloud? My sense is that each of your posts is a form of internet therapy, and you're letting it all out. It's a complicated world we live in, and I appreciate the emotion and care with which you provide sound reasoning for possible policy reform. I guess I should get out in the world more to see the world as you do.

I live in the real world everyday and see it all firsthand. You can see it all from your living room if you choose. Any undertaking of current events or history for that matter will prove that liberalism bankrupts governments, addicts and attracts the lower classes to government handouts, espouses class warfare and envy, and really does no good at all especially in matters of poverty and fiscal responsibility. I suggest you take a field trip to Chicago or Detroit's inner city to see how well liberalism has done. Whatever you do don't bring a gun and be prepared to vomit or urinate.

SW,

There are some safe haven models I like here and in Europe and in African countries for children who have nowhere to go after school. They represent local community and public school efforts combined, so that resources are drawn from both places to accommodate the needs of poor children. They're usually neighborhood oriented and provide services to families as needed. There's a good one in Dearborn, MI and there are a couple on the south side of Chicago, and there's one I know about in Lincoln, NE, and there's one in East LA too that I visited when I worked with children who weren't doing well in school. All of these depend on some state, local, and federal funding, in addition to community members who are proactive in their neighborhoods and cities. Funding for public education and health and the gentrification of depleted neighborhoods can be creatively used to improve conditions for poor children. At the federal level HUD has for years had competitions for federal funding to support local initiatives that bring together businesses, universities, families, housing, and service learning activities. I'm not sure it's been applied as systematically as it might be to address the needs of poor children.

The dire unemployment situation in some areas of the country need to be addressed because you're right -- it has a huge affect on poor children and their parents. I'm not sure what the viable alternatives are given that we've moved away from manufacturing in the US and more or less into more and more service industries for adults, and I'm not sure there's a mechanism for preparing a work force for that kind of work, although community colleges are ahead of everyone else in that area.

You live in la-la land, where ignorance is currency.

Not you, RJ...ugly has cash to burn where he lives.

Married Ugly -- Are you always this grumpy? I lived in the south side of Chicago for years and did a lot of work in the Detroit area. Guns would not have been particularly useful where I was because as it happens, I lived in one of the poorest and safest enclaves in both places. Poverty does not equate violence everywhere and many forms of welfare, such as funding for adult disability or child after school programs actually improve people's chances to get back on their feet and work or help others. You're watching too much TV. Get out there and see what it's really like.

Hardly watch TV and I am one of the funniest good natured ladies you will ever meet. Absolutely right that poverty does not equate to violence. Culture relates to violence which is why the poor in rural areas just are not very violent they were just raised differently than what government fund addled inner city folk were. I am all for spending some money to change the culture and get people out of the liberal caused cesspools. It would be good for the children which is why liberals like benny want them to rot in the ghettos and vote for liberals.

Yawn

Benny sleeps while the children are starved. Oh... the humanity!!!

"I for one will continue to voice concern over government spending and government growth that is unsustainable."

-- Posted by marriedugly on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:41 AM

We should add to Married's quote: "Unless that unsustainable spending occurs in Red States, then I don't care because I am a terrible hypocrite."

Again slow one, government spending is necessary in certain areas and I welcome my tax dollars being spent there. Wastefully doling out trillions to the unneedy is ruining this nation fiscally.

Trillions? Are you allergic to facts?

"government spending is necessary in certain areas and I welcome my tax dollars being spent there."

What don't you understand about simple math, ugly? Conservative states GET MORE MONEY THAN THEY PAY IN TAXES.

This means that Conservative states contribute the most to the national deficit. Or, put another way, they are more of a drain on our finances than Blue states. Not rocket science there stud.

Keep in mind that the "Red State/Blue State" spending tactic dates back to the 2004 election cycle. Since then, a few states have switched political alliances.

Also keep in mind the spending figures reflect ALL federal expendatures. Red states tend to be larger in area than blue states and larger stretches of road are required. Red states tend contain more military bases than blue states. Red states tend to contain more natural and agricultural resources than blue states, and need the infrastructures required to get those resources to market.

As far as welfare spending goes, this map is to be broken down to the county level. There, you will find it neatly corrresponds with democrat voting.

Marrie Dugly,

My apologies for writing your name as Married Ugly. Marrie, why assume that city dwellers are more violent? Also, folks in rural areas, especially farming and ranching communities, have been subsidized by legislation for farming and agriculture for approximately 75 years. These have often been extremely generous support structures, and I wonder if they mitigate poverty and violence because they basically help farmers thrive when the "crops don't come in" or livestock don't do particularly well. There's nothing culture specific about either the inner city or rural places that makes one more or less prone to violence. It seems that where government has a larger economic impact in terms of providing consistent and generous funding, the more stable and content people might be in tough economic times, and that describes your rural, farming folks, whose children might otherwise be very poor.

CPB,

All data are from 2008-2010.

The facts are the facts. I am not arguing that large stretches of road do not account for part of the federal spending in red states. Spending is spending. The FACT is that red states cost more than blue ones. One can justify this fact in whatever ways they wish, be it farm subsidies, defense contracts, disability (see N.Dakota), etc., but at the end of the day the numbers will be the numbers, Red states are more of a burden to the deficit than blue states. This is not disputable.

It is still 2004 data. Also remember, the raw goods produced in the Red states are processed in the blue states. The blue states enjoy the tax revenues from the processed goods. Solution, Red states must build their own processing and keep tax revenues.

CPB,

It is NOT 2004 data. Updates my man. Updates. New figures do come out.

Without infrastructure, blue states would not be able to process resources from Red states and enjoy the tax benefits of that, and joblessness in blue states skyrockets, and thus more poverty. Without a great national defense, poverty would reign since we wouldn't exist as a free nation.

Wise government spending is necessary to provide infrastructure and defense. The problem is unwise government spending. It is not directed at efficient productivity and taxation.

Government spending to curb poverty has only subsidized it. We have built a permanent entitlement class, the 47% (actually 52%), who refuse the opportunity to become independent. They refuse to become productive because we have allowed a system that pays more to be idle. They dependently entitled vote as a block, the blue counties. Politicians know this as a valuable source of votes and will never do anything which will upset this block.

I fear we are now stuck with this growing class of dependency. Poverty will never be curbed, only growing. We can omly blame ourselves.

We've been stuck for a long time Chunky. And now the liberals are delivering the teet suckers to the polls so look out. There is no pulling up the nose of this plane.

RJ, there are no assumptions only facts. Look up any murder or violent crime rate in the liberal controlled inner cities and then compare it to conservative rural areas. You may want to pull your head out of the sand before you quit breathing. And your comparison to farm subsidies and inner city handouts and the relation to crime is patently absurd. You may be suffering the effects of oxygen deprivation already. Pull out!!!! Pull out!!!!

TLDR

"Government spending to curb poverty has only subsidized it. We have built a permanent entitlement class, the 47% (actually 52%), who refuse the opportunity to become independent."

Ahh yes, the ridiculous "47%" argument.

Let's see what the demographic breakdown of the 47% actually is:

Elderly = 10.9%

Non-elderly = 6.9% (including all military personnel in combat zones)

Employed local and payroll tax payers = 28.3%

>1% = Self-employed in suffering businesses

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/who-is-47-not-paying-taxe...

Also, in 2011, more than 491,000 people earning over 100k did not pay income taxes.

Corporations are people, and they are also part of the 47%. There were 26 major US companies that paid no income tax between 2008 and 2011.

So let's see, corporations, the elderly, soldiers, and earners over 100k are all 47%-ers..."teetsuckers", as ugly calls them, but they most certainly are NOT democratic voting blocks. Quite the opposite.

Also, 8 out of 10 states with the highest rates of federal income tax non-payers, are Red states. More of that ole' Red-State Socialism.

Lastly, it were the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that erased federal income tax obligations for many Americans. Bush even boasted about taking 5 million people off the tax rolls in 2004. And Reagan called the EITC, "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

The Child Tax Credit, which give working families a tax break, were pushed by conservatives as ways to alleviate poverty as well.

In sum, Conservatives have created the situation in which 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. And Conservative states, and conservative voters, benefit from these tax policy in disproportionate numbers.

Facts. Boys and girls.

yawn..................

The truth is boring to morons.

SSDD with the blogs, bla bla bla, I know you are but what about me. Bla bla bla, I know you are but what about me. Bla bla bla, I know you are but what about me. My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts. Sound familiar to anyone else? But of course absolutely none of you could ever be wrong. I know, if I don't like it don't read it, guess what? I don't. I just scroll to the bottom assuming all the BS thats involved.

That is all very interesting, Keda. Thank you for sharing.

So, what must we do to lift our children out of poverty?

We should start a program where their food and medical needs are taken care of. We should pay for their parents cell phones, heat in the winter, their parents food needs, and maybe we should give the parents some sort of a charge card to purchase things with. If we would only implement these type programs then the parents might be freed up enough to seek work and to educate themselves and move their children out of the culture of poverty they find themselves in. If we just did all of the above children would not only be lifted out of poverty they would be better off than almost all of the poverty stricken children in the whole world. One could even argue that by other countries standards our poor would NOT be living in poverty. Why won't the evil conservatives allow this to happen???? They think handing out all this free stuff wouldn't work. They must be a bunch of idiots these conservatives.

They should fend for themselves. It isn't our responsibility to care about our fellow citizens. If they don't make it they lack the personal qualities it takes to be successful. It is their fault for not taking the initiative. The game is not rigged, minorities and poor people have every advantage rich white kids in the suburbs have. They can make it by simply pulling hard enough on those bootstraps. Who cares if we have to pay more in taxes for escalating incarceration rates when they don't? Who cares if our country's labor force is uneducated? It doesn't effect me in rural Nebraska.

I see your point, ugly, idiots indeed.

GMa,

Do you suppose childish phrases like "dumbo POTUS" are part of the reason one side won't listen to the other?

http://vimeo.com/31727820

This is the reality. This is why CA will go bankrupt. This is why we need to gut these programs.

GMa,

First, ignorant is not an insult. We are all ignorant of something. If someone does not know or has ignored a set of facts, pointing this out is not intended to as an insult. If you take it that way, my apologies.

Second, I went back to see how many times "idiot" and "moron" was written in Michael's last four blogs. Guess what I found?

You write "idiot" and "moron" far more than any other poster here:

Uses of the term "idiot" and "moron":

GMa: 24

Ugly: 6

Benevolus: 6

Michael: 1

Mickel: 1

Smz: 1

In fact, your snarky comments and mocking and irreverent posts are by far and away the least productive.

So yes, you often behave like a child. Perhaps you enjoy being a child, but I have to laugh at someone like you talking about middle-ground.

So, with all the money dedicated to social programs since the 1960's

Why do we have hungry people in The USA?

Without all the money dedicated to social programs since 1960's would there be more hungry people in the USA?

??

Twit.

My question is valid. Our county has funneled vast amounts of money into Social programs to combat, hunger, unemployment, wic, etc, etc.

So why do we have hungry people in this county?

Why won't an able bodied male or female find a job?

Could it be that it is to easy to stay on the dole?

Forgive me if I weep when I see neglected and starving Children. I cannot turn away and feel the need to help them.

I am a conservative that believes in the American Dream but the thought or sight of hungry and suffering old people or kids makes me almost physically ill.

#elvesandmore

#StarofHopeMission

#HoustonChildrensCharity

#McCookPantry

I have long argued that what the Government should do where there are clusters of welfare parents is have 3-5 of the parents run a daycare center and the rest of the parents work instead of all the welfare mothers sitting at home. That way the single welfare mothers will all work and the kids will all go to a safe place with at least 2 meals.

boojum,

Why the insults? My question is every but as valid as yours. Advocates of social programs don't claim they are perfect, or even the best solution, but that doesn't mean they do not make a difference for a large number of people.

The opposing proposition is cutting social programs and making people fend for themselves. This is a horrible alternative. The statistics are in, and most people do not abuse the system. Most people benefit from the social nets in place until they get back on their feet (see: Paul Ryan).

Boojum, there really are not hungry kids in the U.S. that are hungry due to funding. There are ample government and private programs to feed them. The children that are hungry are that way due to neglect and abuse and there numbers are very few. We have police and courts to deal with them. What we need is police and courts to ensure that those on the government teet deserve to be suckling from it. I contend very few deserve the hand out.

Marsh, what you are proposing sounds great to me but the liberals will say what you propose is nothing more than the way African Tribes take care of the kids and you will be accused of racism. They will say the only thing you left out was to have the mothers pick fleas out of the yutes hair and eat them. They will bury you with all kinds of allegations of racism even though what you propose makes perfect, common, and fiscal sense.

Did you guys check out the nail job on the teet sucker in the video I posted. That is a $50 dollar bill right there Brandon.

Wallis,

Why ask for forgiveness? By acting individually to help others you are abiding by your conservative ideals.

The problem with so-called "gun free zones" is that mass murderers never seem to get the memo.

....or do they?

Agree there are those on the public dole that could easily provide for themselves--don't care for that nor do I support it--but much more costly to those of us who are working taxpayers are those corporate "citizens" who are feeding at the public trough.

To those who totally oppose Obama, do you realize that in the not to distant future we will become a net exporter, that's right, exporter of oil because he supports opening up select public lands for drilling? Hey, big oil doesn't like all his plans, but why should they, they don't want to lose of their corporate welfare.

Don't believe the far left has any more answers than the far right (no answers on either side)--but those in control of the republican party (the 2%) have effectively convinced otherwise intelligent Americans into believe all kinds of untruths. Do you realize the teaparty is funded by the 2% to spread mis-information?

You don't know much about the Tea Party.

And just exactly what are those lies?