 |
Mr. Bad Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Argh! Bad tags. Try again:
jeana said:
"They just have far less patience than women and aren’t willing to take any crap. They get angry more often and at littler things. I’m not sure that’s really better. That’s why you need women: to soften the hard edge of dads."
What a steaming pile of horse manure. Women are no more patient, nurturing, less violent than men are - men are just different about these things.
However, jeana, I don't particularly object to single mothers by choice. What I object to is single women choosing to be mothers and then presenting me (and other taxpayers) the bill for her choices. All the while doing a spectacularly dismal job of being a "mother" by raising a family of career criminals.
You want to raise a kid on your own? Knock yourself out. But truly do it on your own instead of just pretending by taking all the credit for the good things while at the same time blaming society, especially men, for the poor outcomes and then billing the taxpayer for child support via WIC, welfare, childcare subsidies, school lunch programs, etc., etc., etc. And then, when you've done all that and the kid ends up in a criminal, we end up paying the bill for his arrest, prosecution, incarceration, etc., etc., only to pay for the kid's welfare, counseling, umemployment, etc., once he gets out.
jeana Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Mr. Bad,
I also don’t like being presented with a bill for a poverty stricken single mother who choose to have a baby when she clearly knows she shouldn’t have one. I don’t agree with people who say that everyone has the right to have a baby regardless of their situation. But once the kid is here, what can you do? You can’t let them die in a gutter somewhere.
However, I don’t really object to helping a pregnant poor mother get nutritious food, poor kids (from 2-parent families too) getting their one hot meal a day free at school, and child care subsidies that allow a woman to work and decrease the burden she is to society. I am also for men getting subsidized (free, actually) medical care, their kids getting free meals if they’re poor, and child care subsidies if they need it. People are poor and there’s no magic pill to get them out of poverty.
I would object (if I were an MRA) not to any of the programs you mentioned but to single females getting pregnant on purpose and roping a guy in to pay for child support when he clearly didn’t want to become a father.
Pankaj Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
"However, I don’t really object to helping a pregnant poor mother get nutritious food, poor kids (from 2-parent families too) getting their one hot meal a day free at school, and child care subsidies that allow a woman to work and decrease the burden she is to society."
Jeana,
Should people be forced to do "good"? The quotes define subjectiveness of the idea.
Should people be punished for earning a living through hard work?
jeana Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
PK,
First of all, there are indeed people who “beg” because it gets them $300-$400 a day. They’re not actually poor; it’s a lifestyle choice. That being said, there are lots of poor people begging that are actually poor and don’t (at that time) have any other options.
So you’re comparing people who would severely injure kids to get more $$ with poor moms? And then you have the nerve to suggest that the state should have the right to step in and take away a poor woman’s kids because being poor means she is somehow morally unfit? I remember when some Republican years ago suggested that all kids on state aid be taken away from their parents and put in orphanages. I bet you’d be for that.
Do you also think that poor men, who are unfairly mostly ignored by welfare systems, should also be ignored and even have their kids taken away from them? Even if you believe that men are super duper parents and way more important than women in their kids’ lives?
And you make the same argument that lots of conservatives/libertarians make—you are loathe to have the government pay for anything for the poor and instead insist that wealthy people (and charitable organizations) take care of it. The major problem with this, of course, is that this would never, ever happen. (Why don’t they do it now????) Plus, it’s not fair for some poor person to hope to maneuver a patchwork safety net system (which many do anyway) in order to get help. There is a purpose for government, and that is to exist to help the people. Maybe you forgot this!
wolfboy69 Says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Jeana - And you make the same argument that lots of conservatives/libertarians make—you are loathe to have the government pay for anything for the poor and instead insist that wealthy people (and charitable organizations) take care of it. The major problem with this, of course, is that this would never, ever happen. (Why don’t they do it now????)
=======================================================
Because, for some reason, Democrats/liberals only seem to want to give away other people's money, while conservatives/libertarians are the ones who give more to charitable causes. PK is on the right track with this.
http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/arthur-brooks-who-really-cares-the-surprising-truth-about-compassionate-conservatism/
I know, I know....your taxes go to those programs.....so do mine... which means that conservatives/libertarians are giving twice...once by the gun (Taxes) and again on their own.
It would be interesting to note that I myself am a recipient of only one of the above mentioned programs. I make "too much" to receive anything but one item from the 'government'. Yet as some of the above posters believe, I should not be allowed to be a primary residential parent because I have to rely on a program to care for my child. PUHLEASE!!!! I was a SAHM for 6 years at my husband's request. Since having no choice but to gain employment due to his continued and escalating abuse of me by him, I have managed to work for a little under 3 years now. In the course of that 3 years I have managed to raise my income from 4 digit to 5 digit earnings. The first year I was employed I was in 4 digit earnings (which is poverty even for one person). I am now in 5 digit earnings and in one year I doubled my income. Yes you heard that right - DOUBLED!!!! I hope to double it again in two years after I finish my education. Should not be difficult if I can focus on my studies and if my abuser will calm down and quit his games!!!! Oh yeah I know ask for the impossible. At least it is down to a predictable dull roar with the attempts at control and abuse being fairly.....well you know.....predictable.....
The whole point behind this is that without being a recipient of some sort of assistance I might very well stay 'stuck' in poverty forever. Now should the child and I have to live a life in poverty simply because I finally grew a set as so many are fond of saying and said no more abuse? And while I am on THAT topic - why is it always considered manly when a person of feminine persuasion actually stands up for herself and this is construed as growing a set? Why are females always perceived as 'less than'? That a woman cannot possibly be 'strong' and 'feminine'?
That is the content for another post so I will close with this statement:
federal and state level assistance programs are there for a reason. Are we to do as one poster insinuated and remove all children from poor parents (ie - mothers) and give them to rich parents (or fathers)?
No comments:
Post a Comment