elaborate a bit more on your discernment between the two please |
Look at it this way...with all of the state and federal social programs out there, there is no reason why a child shouldn't get 3 meals a day, a check up once a year, medicine when they are sick, and some form of education. There is no reason why these kids shouldn't have a shot.
But it takes the parent, the adult, to have the fortitude to take care of their kid. They have to "give a fuck" so to speak. The social programs should be there to financially provide for the kid so the parent can get on track to bring the family to independency (is that a word?). A kid can get all the books, pencils, and calculators from the public school system but it takes the parent to get them to study. The taxpayers can pay for all of the groceries anyone needs but it takes the parent to make the choice between carrots or Oreos.
The point of the social programs should be that they are temporary, but almost half of welfare recipients receive assistance for 5 years.
See what I mean? If a parent is unable to do those things, they shouldn't be a parent. No amount of money from the taxpayers is going to do shit for that kid unless they have good parents. The parents that are on assistance and keep having kids...come on?!?!
So let's make a deal as a society, we are going to help you kids out because they don't deserve to be thrown to the side, and at the same time acknowledge that the parent(s) need to start being more responsible and not fuck up, or have more kids while they already asking society to pitch in for the first one.
I feel bad for the kids mostly, not the parents. They are the adults, they are supposed to be the responsible ones.
View Profile Picture
Posts: 6,002
Currently Playing
View Blog
