SC Lt. Gov: Poor Like "Stray Animals." Don't Feed Them or "They Breed."

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Studies have shown that hungry people breed more. In times of great poverty many different cultures have produced more offspring than in times of wealth. The guy will wreck his own plan.




posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Studies have shown that hungry people breed more. In times of great poverty many different cultures have produced more offspring than in times of wealth. The guy will wreck his own plan.


I wonder why this would be? Hmmmmmmm I eat babies, just kidding...but seriously what would cause them to breed more? If it's an actual fact, is there a source? Can you post a link to some proof of this? I can't fathom that people would breed more in poverty?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Try looking at the birth rates of African nations compared to modernized industrialized nations.

Poverty is in part causes by irresponsibility. As in irresponsibly giving births to more mouths you cant feed.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
[snip]
What about those people, it's a monster the system created and the people living off it are just a victim as well, so how do you reverse the damage? I really do beleive that some of them not all, have been manipulated by the system as pawns to keep this thing running. That's just an opinion, but I think there needs to be some net for those who's self esteem and self worth has been lowered. MAybe counseling? I don't know. It's also why many of them turn to drugs which we all know affects your IQ. Depression is one of the MAIN causes of drug abuse.


That, unfortunately, is where you and I have to choose to help, or to watch them disappear. I'd feel bad watching them fade away (as any human would), but I'd feel worse for their children they'd bring into this world by helping them sustain that lifestyle. Darwinism is really the way to go. If they can't survive with all the help we've given them...their genes are just not meant to live on. Horrible way to think, but it's an inevitable truth.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I wonder why this would be? Hmmmmmmm I eat babies, just kidding...but seriously what would cause them to breed more? If it's an actual fact, is there a source? Can you post a link to some proof of this? I can't fathom that people would breed more in poverty?


It is true and documented. You can only feel bad for so many people, until enough is enough.

www.census.gov... (pdf)



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by Kailassa

And what about mothers who are deserted, who are widows, or who have abusive husbands?


This is a sad and unfortunate event in humanity, and any abusive husband should be taught a lesson. A very long lasting one.



My husband turned mean when we learned out 2 sons were handicapped, so he kept trying to injure and even kill them. So I had to leave him, and became a single mother with 3 little kids. As 2 were handicapped I couldn't work, but that was no tragedy because I could get a single parent pension. Despite rumours of this pension being extravagantly generous, I could not afford heating, and had to burn collected rubbish for warmth.


This is a heart-wrenching story, and I'm sure there are many more like it. But at every turn, there are friends, family and neighbors. Even charity's. Although, in this day in age, when your friends, family, neighbors and would be wealthy helpers are taxed into oblivion (anywhere between 25%-60% of their income), they are less likely to be able to give (even if they wanted).



We survived, I attended classes and gained qualifications I could use working from home, I started paying taxes, and all my three children, despite their handicaps and eligibility for pensions work and pay taxes too.


And therein lies the problem. The taxation in America is redundant, and a way for the elite to horde money from even the people who need it the most (such as yourself and your children). If you're family was not taxed, they would be able to live better, fuller lives as well as getting help from others who could then afford to help. Humanity is a ruthless barrage of selfishness, but there are also MANY compassionate people who would help.



The total government support I got was ~$1,000,000.
Since then my children and I have paid about twice that in taxes, and they will be paying taxes for many years to come. It's a sound investment if you ask me.


Is that a typo? Does that say roughly a million?! The average American makes between 1 and 2 million in his/entire ENTIRE lifetime according to the census. I hope you are nearing 80 years old...



Single parents like me are the ones you never hear about, but we are not uncommon.


I have 5 aunts who have been married and divorced numerous times, and have on average 2-3 kids a piece. Granted child support helps (which I'm still on the fence about, but we can discuss that in a later thread), but what got them through the tough times was all of their family pulling together and helping. If you're entire family has passed on, I am truly sorry sorry. If they have not, and they have not helped, then shame on them.



By the way, the single parent pension was not invented as an act of charity. It was worked out that it was cheaper to pay a woman to stay home and look after her own children than to support them in an orphanage. So orphanages were closed and replaced with this pension.


This I can't argue with. Any kind of government run facility is just a waste of time and money, and kids need as much love as they can get, especially from a loving biological parent that wants to keep them and help them grow up. BUT, it should not be the job of the government (and by proxy, us the tax-payers).

You say someone in the situation I was in should rely on family, friends, neighbours and charities to help.

My friends turned against me for leaving my violent husband, because they had never seen that side of him.

My neighbours didn't know me and didn't want to. I was judged by the fact that druggies had previously rented the old house I rented after I left my husband, and they wouldn't even let me use a telephone, or ring an ambulance themselves, when a lady was dying on the street in front of their houses as a result of a car accident.

My family, including my mother, had sexually abused me as a child, (as I've mentioned here in other threads,) and also abused my daughter when I was in hospital. They weren't going to help.

I tried charities. At one I was gives a plastic supermarket bag of mouldy yoghurts. Another gave me mouldy bread and tinned pumpkin soup.



What is obvious in this thread that there are many people here who would not give a stuff if millions of women and children slowly starve to death, provided they save a few cents on their taxes.

Well folks, you're only fooling yourselves. It doesn't matter how many services the government cuts out, they will never lower taxes on the middle class. All you will achieve is eliminating services that families in your tax-bracket need while the government laughs at your trusting compliance.

And, while you're at it, you will be forcing a population INCREASE because one factor causing poor people to have babies in 3rd world countries is the lack of welfare. They have lots of children so someone will be there to look after them when they cannot earn a living themselves.


Btw, that $1,000,000 was only out by a factor of 10. ;-)
I meant one hundred thousand.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Try looking at the birth rates of African nations compared to modernized industrialized nations.

Poverty is in part causes by irresponsibility. As in irresponsibly giving births to more mouths you cant feed.

Valid point. In America we started by needing more farm hands, thus encouraging the poor to be fruitful and multiply. Nowadays, you get a bigger welfare check if you have more kids. Many other factors contribute to this phenomenon. One I always believed in was that sex is the only thing poor people can afford and birth control can be expensive. I can't find the studies supporting what I divulged. I know they are out there.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I couldn't agree more. Allowing our divisiveness to rule our thinking robs us of solutions. Issues degenerate into name calling and the pointing of fingers. I like to say, "I'm not right. You're not right either. But together we can create something to benefit the both of us." Let's put our differences aside, find common ground. We can always go back to our differences but let's fix it first. We all want the same basic things. Wishful thinking I know. But it's better then giving in to hopelessness and despair.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
On the flip side, by cutting off unconstitutional wealth redistribution policies, we will force the "poor" to fend for themselves or simply perish.

Not really a bad thing.



Gosh, I sure hope you and your family don't ever meet with hard times -
where you have to fend for yourselves. I have worked with many poor families who did nothing to "deserve" their lot in life - I would not want to see these wonderful people perish because they didn't know how to fit into a society or system that is seriously broken, greedy and mind controlled.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by spinkyboo]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Yes let the poor fend for themselves, because goodness knows we're all born in the same circumstances with the same golden spoons in our mouths.

Just another example of elitism. Conservative or liberal, how can you not be disgusted.


[edit on 26-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
I'll have to side with brainwrek on this one.

What many people don't understand, is that there is a difference between welfare, and unemployment.


We may have differences in welfare and how it should be handled, but that comment from the Lt Gov was disgusting and nobody should be making excuses for it, regardless of which side you stand on the issue. That was an elitist statement that we should all frown upon but its people like you that keep such politicians in power.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


Life isnt fair. It was never meant to be that way, and it isnt the duty of the fortunate to subsidize the less fortunate. That is a choice, not a mandate.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
You say someone in the situation I was in should rely on family, friends, neighbours and charities to help.

My friends turned against me for leaving my violent husband, because they had never seen that side of him.


Nice friends. I suggest picking better company.



My neighbours didn't know me and didn't want to. I was judged by the fact that druggies had previously rented the old house I rented after I left my husband, and they wouldn't even let me use a telephone, or ring an ambulance themselves, when a lady was dying on the street in front of their houses as a result of a car accident.


Why did you stay there? No one was forcing you to live there.



My family, including my mother, had sexually abused me as a child, (as I've mentioned here in other threads,) and also abused my daughter when I was in hospital. They weren't going to help.


That's awful. I can't imagine what that does to a person. You have my sympathies here, truly.



I tried charities. At one I was gives a plastic supermarket bag of mouldy yoghurts. Another gave me mouldy bread and tinned pumpkin soup.


Some charities are fronts for businesses seeking tax breaks. You can't trust a lot of them. But there are some trustworthy ones out there. It's just trial and error.



What is obvious in this thread that there are many people here who would not give a stuff if millions of women and children slowly starve to death, provided they save a few cents on their taxes.


That's a possibility. But...It should be their choice. The government has NO right to take what I make. What income tax does is this:

If I lived in the woods, and caught a fish, that would e my income for that day of work (fishing). The government would then want 1/4 of that fish. Is that right? F no it's not right. That is theft. And any who would want a government to steal a portion of my fish, and give it to someone else is a thief and a cancer to any society I would want to be in. I should have the freedom to share (or not share) my fish with anyone I want.



Well folks, you're only fooling yourselves. It doesn't matter how many services the government cuts out, they will never lower taxes on the middle class.


Thanks to the welfare state.



All you will achieve is eliminating services that families in your tax-bracket need while the government laughs at your trusting compliance.


My family can survive in the woods Pioneer style. I wouldn't worry about us. If push comes to shove, we can survive. Which is probably why we're so successful.



And, while you're at it, you will be forcing a population INCREASE because one factor causing poor people to have babies in 3rd world countries is the lack of welfare. They have lots of children so someone will be there to look after them when they cannot earn a living themselves.


That is their choice. And if they bring 1, none or 15 children into the world, if they cannot afford them, they are responsible for their deaths. NOT ME.



Btw, that $1,000,000 was only out by a factor of 10. ;-)
I meant one hundred thousand.


That's a bit more reasonable. But that's still a lot of money. How long did this last? That just sounds asinine. It took my first 8 years of work (starting at 15) to hit the 100,000k mark (or there about). How long were you on assistance?!



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We may have differences in welfare and how it should be handled, but that comment from the Lt Gov was disgusting and nobody should be making excuses for it, regardless of which side you stand on the issue. That was an elitist statement that we should all frown upon but its people like you that keep such politicians in power.


The only thing worse than his statement, is yours. I do not condone his statement, and NOBODY here is making excuses for the words he used. We only agree with his initial premise. Obviously he has some bias for a specific group of people, and used choice words that may be abrasive to you. But his message resonates MUCH with middle class America.

But I did not vote for him. The only politician I have ever voted for was Ron Paul. Do not blindly lump me into a role. You don't even know me.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
NOBODY here is making excuses


It is more than evident that there have been a number of members in this thread defending his statement. It is also evident that there are a number of members here who are yet to dismiss his comment.



We only agree with his initial premise.


So you dont agree witht he comment he made, you agree with his initial premise, yet you dont dismiss his actual comment and you continue to argue your views on welfare. How does that work?


Obviously he has some bias for a specific group of people


So why are there some people defending his comments then? We know your stance on welfare, but why defend his comments?

Seriously, your trying to make excuses for the people here evidently shaking their heads with this man and what he said, and your doing a poor job of covering it up.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Sorry I can't read or take responsibility for every single post in this thread. What I was saying is that, his premise (those feeding of of welfare and doing NOTHING to better their lives, should be CUT OFF).

The only words I see quoted (from the OP) are:

1. "ample food supply"
2. "curtail that type of behavior"
3. "They don’t know any better"

To me that doesn't seem that bad. I didn't hear or see the actual transcripts, so I don't know if the actual "stray animal", or "can’t control their distasteful sexual urges" are actual quotes. It's only paraphrased. So I will continue to hold my judgment. Even if he said something else so outlandish and revolting, and I said I didn't approve of his word choice...I would still agree that there are leeches sucking us dry.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


I saw this too and was appalled when you look at the bigger picture it seems even worse! The elite know resources are dwindling and all it will take are a few larger scale events like Haiti to send the masses into a panic. The elite are taking steps as i write this to assure their bloodlines continue while the "commoners" die off! There is plenty of growing evidence to support this you just have to read between the lines in the news everyday. [source] Scientists link flame retardants and reduced human fertility "" b



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   


Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
My friends turned against me for leaving my violent husband, because they had never seen that side of him.

Nice friends. I suggest picking better company.

It's a common story for women who have left charming husbands.
Struggling to look after handicapped children and find ways to provide for them and study, the supporting parent pension in Australia was a godsend, and I'm not complaining, but I had to sew, grow veges and find stuff to burn to keep them properly provided for, and their care was time consuming. This left me no time to make friends or money to socialise with.




My neighbours didn't know me and didn't want to. I was judged by the fact that druggies had previously rented the old house I rented after I left my husband, and they wouldn't even let me use a telephone, or ring an ambulance themselves, when a lady was dying on the street in front of their houses as a result of a car accident.

Why did you stay there? No one was forcing you to live there.

Now you are showing how little you understand of living in poverty.

Poverty means having no disposable income, and not even enough money for necessities..

To move into a rented place means paying a bond and advance rent. I had to borrow $800 to pay those to move into the decrepit little house I rented, and that house was very good value for that time and that area. It had to be that area in order for me to study the course I had chosen, which in turn enabled me to lift my family out of that situation. It took almost a year to repay that money. There was no way I could afford to move again until a year after that. And I was determined that, when I did move again, it would be to a house of our own, (which I have now finished paying off.)




And, while you're at it, you will be forcing a population INCREASE because one factor causing poor people to have babies in 3rd world countries is the lack of welfare. They have lots of children so someone will be there to look after them when they cannot earn a living themselves.

That is their choice. And if they bring 1, none or 15 children into the world, if they cannot afford them, they are responsible for their deaths. NOT ME.

It's not really a choice when having babies is the only way to ensure one's survival. How many people in this thread care more about their country than about their own comfort? Do you expect poverty-stricken folk with no access to welfare to not make this provision for their own futures?

You've said yourself one should turn to one's own family for help. Naturally this implies having or creating a family.

I brought this up because I thought world population was an issue to you. Was I wrong in this assumption?




Btw, that $1,000,000 was only out by a factor of 10. ;-)
I meant one hundred thousand.

That's a bit more reasonable. But that's still a lot of money. How long did this last? That just sounds asinine. It took my first 8 years of work (starting at 15) to hit the 100,000k mark (or there about). How long were you on assistance?!

I admit being at fault here. I should have thought to point out this was AU$. I went on welfare in '88, when our dollar was only worth about US$0.6. At that time we needed more AU$ than you needed $US to get by. I was fully on a pension for 3 - 4 years, then had gradually decreasing assistance for the next 4.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Just out of curiosity, what college degrees or other education do the gas station worker, the factory worker, and the pizza jockey you mentioned hold?



As an extension to this question if these people are working for the lowest legal amount they should be able to live decently enough, not great but decent. Why do they need assistance?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by habfan1968
 


You just made an argument as for why poor families shouldnt reproduce. If they cant afford to properly house, feed, clothe, and educate their children, they shouldnt have them.

Good job.


I agree with the sentiment, these poor people need to get motivated and start understanding that the taxpayers cannot continue like this.





new topics




 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join