Why do people who cant even feed themselves keep having multiple kids?
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Did he?
You should form your opinions of what he says by actually listening to what he says. Not by listening to what other people say he says.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
this is why you people are losing, no arguments and only a haughty tone.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Your original comment wasn't about fatherlessness. You originally said it was about fathers staying at home with, i.e., staying home to care for their kids. Now you're trying to conflate two separate ideas.
Kirk has a real bogus argument going on here, when he says "we subsidize single motherhood." SNAP benefits were set up for low-income families, not single women with children. Single or married MEN also can get those benefits if their income level is low enough. Why does Kirk have to demonize women, especially black women, to argue against a government benefit? Because he was a horrible person with horrible ideas that had a veneer of civility.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I guess you didn't read my first comment. I could read a transcript of his words faster than watching a video of him saying those words.
You do realize THE VAST NUMBER of kids with no fathers in the home have a biological father that isn't in the home and isn't part of their lives.
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's a different discussion! We're talking about a parent staying at home to raise children rather than being in the workforce. And Kirk wanted that to be the mother.
Christie this is what I said.
PROVE ME WRONG.
He encouraged the FATHERS of those babies to stay in the home and raise their own children. He correctly said the government has made it possible for women to "marry" the government and men to abandon their own kids. So Christie don't try to misrepresent what he said by tell half truths.
Christie you said Kirk wanted women to have more babies. But you failed to mention that Kirk want MARRIED people to have more babies and to raise those babies. Kirk never advocated for single women to have babies and raise those babies in single parent families. As I said you told a HALF TRUTH.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Keep beating that dead horse.Christie this is what I said.
PROVE ME WRONG.
He encouraged the FATHERS of those babies to stay in the home and raise their own children. He correctly said the government has made it possible for women to "marry" the government and men to abandon their own kids. So Christie don't try to misrepresent what he said by tell half truths.
Christie you said Kirk wanted women to have more babies. But you failed to mention that Kirk want MARRIED people to have more babies and to raise those babies. Kirk never advocated for single women to have babies and raise those babies in single parent families. As I said you told a HALF TRUTH.
"He encouraged the FATHERS of those babies to stay in the home and raise their own children" has a different meaning than "there should be two-parent households." And I stand by my assertion that Kirk made this argument about black women, not men, not white women, because that was his dog whistle that black women are cheating the government. When the truth is, whites are the largest group getting SNAP benefits, and 89% of those getting benefits are U.S..-born.
That’s them!
A married couple will have their total household income considered, which can lead to reduced benefits, especially for programs like housing assistance. A single parent might receive more in benefits compared to what their household would receive with a partner whose income is added.
For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year will generally receive around $5,200 per year from the Food Stamp program. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving public housing benefits would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed. But if she married a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half.
The federal government runs more than 80 welfare aid programs; nearly all of them provide very real financial incentives for couples to remain separate and unmarried. Is there a way to reduce welfare’s marriage penalties without raising overall welfare spending and costing the taxpayer a bundle?
Married to the welfare state
Fifty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war, three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year, taxpayers spent more than $920 billion on 80 different anti-poverty...
www.heritage.org
Fuckum,....get a job or starve.
European and British convicts were sent to America as forced laborers
And Kirk said women and men should not be having kids out of wedlock. He was very pro marriage
You have TDS so how many times have you sucked Trump's dick.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
FTFY. I suspect the answer to the OP question is not related to anything unrelated.
Too funny! Suddenly @Stone is a plural! Well, @Ross Dolan never was honest enough to get even small details correct, so we should all expect much greater dishonesty to come.
Yes, totally owning, correct, keep it up.
@Ross Dolan, the republic is doing better than ever. I just looked outside and yep, it's still there doing great. You must be talking about the Democrat party and the shock waves from its massive implosion. The Democrat party has put their total HATRED for America, and their complete contempt for legal American citizens, on full display with their childish, government shutdown tantrum aimed at destroying our 250 year old republic.
... because it's the fanatical remnants of the imploded Democrat party who are fighting tooth and nail to destroy our 250 year old republic out of spite toward legal America citizens.
Well, that was characteristically stupid of you.
This is another one of your LAME attempts to be inclusive and tolerant by dehumanizing those who hold differing views.
Nope. You bombed the English comprehension portion of the SAT. Ask me how I know.
... but that won't stop you from professing it as gospel truth. Try this; say this with a straight face: "I'm no scientist *BUT* ... Global Warming and Climate Change are absolutely real and are thettled thienth!" C'mon, say it!
Yep, @Stone , I don't know exactly how you were able to pull it off, but you achieved plurality on your own. Congrats.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Why does anybody think the single mother would demand to stay on the program if she got married and their income doubled? This is how conservatives demonize the poor. They look at the poor as grifters, rather than as citizens who fell on hard times and need some temporary help to feed the family. The bias in this article is blatant.A married couple will have their total household income considered, which can lead to reduced benefits, especially for programs like housing assistance. A single parent might receive more in benefits compared to what their household would receive with a partner whose income is added.
For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year will generally receive around $5,200 per year from the Food Stamp program. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving public housing benefits would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed. But if she married a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half.
The federal government runs more than 80 welfare aid programs; nearly all of them provide very real financial incentives for couples to remain separate and unmarried. Is there a way to reduce welfare’s marriage penalties without raising overall welfare spending and costing the taxpayer a bundle?
.Married to the welfare state
Fifty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war, three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year, taxpayers spent more than $920 billion on 80 different anti-poverty...