|
Post by Galadon on Apr 12, 2004 12:32:38 GMT -5
An article in a sunday paper needs a closer look.
More than 13 million children in America are struggling to survive.
Won't you help feed them.
My first question is, "How did they come up with 13 million?
It's a quite catastrophe that's rarly reported, yet child hunger is a problem we can solve together. PARADE contributing editor Daivd Oliver Relin spent months traveling across the country, visiting families in the neediest communities. Here's what he saw.
In the Rio Granade valley, only a few miles from the gaudy new homes that people here call "McMansions," sprawl some of America's poorest neighborhoods. Shantowns know as "colonais" are as common in this part of south Texas as fields of cabbage and surgarcane. More than 500,000 people live in the area's 1500 unincorporated communities, where running water is scare, electricity is a luxury and one in every two children endures hunger.
Dulce Compean, 23 and her husband Ismael, 30, live in the southside colonia, 10 miles southeast of the prosperous cross-border banking center of McAllen, with their sons Eduardo, 7, Edgar, 6, Ismael, Jr, 4 and Ibraayn, 2.
Dulce stares at a saucepan of beans simmering on her stove and tries to images how she can strech this meal to feed her family. She decides to use half of her last loaf of white bread. The Compeans work hard, but like millions of families mired with low-wage jobs, they live below the poverty line. When she can, Dulce cleans houses. Here husband does temporary construction jobs and, after work, collects cardboard to recycle.
The Compeans receive 300 in food stamps a month, but Dulce says it's a struggle no matter how carful she is "I'm not ashamed to tell you that often I don't eat so there will be enough for my children," she says.
Yes I will come across as the mean and heartless conservative. But the story is a bunch of bulls***. I have travelled alot and in every town I have been in if you starve, it means your to damn lazy to get off your ass. I have seen more program to help feed, cloth, and give assitance to people with children than people know of. You just have look and you don't have to look far.
They get 300 a month in food stamps, but have a hard time making it last. Here is one thing that will help, if you can't feed the kids you have STOP having more kids. They have four kids, I suppose I'm the only one who will say this is child nelect and stupid. "We have no money and can hardly feed our selves but let have more kids."
There are churches, charities, and plenty of other things that help across this country. The liberal bias mass media has been throwing in our face that American kids are fat, but now their stavring. Just right across the street from gaudy house. Yes attack people who succeed, the favorite tactic of the bleeding hearts liberals.
More to come from this story that is nothing but a con job.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Apr 13, 2004 2:21:02 GMT -5
So, Galadon, if I understand you correctly, you are proposing that only people with money be allowed to have children? That if someone is not wealthy enough, they should be prevented from having children? Or perhaps they should have their children taken away, as it consitutes, in your words, child neglect?
I'd like to see a single person eat on 300 bucks a month, let alone a couple with one child. You can eat for 300 a month, that's true, but two can barely do it and certainly 3 would be a joke, let alone 5 or 6.
This concept that the poor are lazy is the biggest con job of all.
You tell me. How can this mother of 4 get a job? She'd have to put her kids in daycare at what? 50 bucks an hour for four children? At least 20. What kind of job can she get that would pay her enough to pay for the daycare? Even with one child, you're still talking minimum 5 dollars an hour for daycare. Well, that just let out any minimum wage job and a good many of the service jobs too. So, exactly what job is she supposed to get to pay enough?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 13, 2004 8:30:47 GMT -5
Gal, I just thought it was funny that you post an article that's totally contrary to your point of view and proceed to say it's bull without giving any evidence to the contrary. Sounds like you've done my work for me.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 13, 2004 9:16:04 GMT -5
Both sides have a point here, yes it is hard for people with kids to just up and get a job, but there are organisations out there to help if they just look.
No, the rich are not the only people who should be allowed to have kids, but is it not disturbing that a couple unable to care for 3 kids have 7 or mor and keep having more? How about a family with 13 kids and a 4 kid income and a bun in the oven, is this not rather irresponsible?
And what of the 3-4 or more generation welfare families? Could not even one of them break the cycle?
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Apr 13, 2004 16:35:58 GMT -5
I know, I'm absurd, thinking people should be responsible for their life. If you have trouble feeding one kid it's perfectly alright to have another kid year after year. lets have four kids when we can't even feed one. Yes these days I'm a strange and unusal person for expecting people to have the intellegence and responsibility to know you can't have kid after kid after kid and hope to have every one else take care of them.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Apr 13, 2004 16:39:19 GMT -5
And now the other half of the article, which I find even more absurd.
Sandra Maller, 42 has come with her son Matthew, 11, to pick up emergency food for the frist time in her life. Maller worked as a computer specialist for the U.S Forest Service for 20 years, quit because of family problems, then was laid off from an adminstrative assistant job when the economy slid south. "We don't have healt insurance anymore, " she says. "One more bad turn and I don't know what we'll do."
Maller stares down at a paper bag containing cans of tuna, boxes of cereal and a big jar of peanut butter. "I never thouhgt I'd be standing here," she says. "It kind of makes you feel depressed and worthless. But I have to do whatever it takes to feed Matthew."She says her son refuses to eat the cheap meals of milk and powered mashed potatoes that she's been forced to serve, and he's started to act up at school. Authorities have insisted that he attend anger management classes. "We had everything once," Maller says. "Now we have to start over from nothing."
Now this Bulls*** con job was written to convince people to send money to a charity. Isn't that nice why I'm over come with tears please take my money and send it to the charity. So they can keep 80% of the money for adminstration cost and another 10% for other things and give a whopping 10% to the 13 million kids starving.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Apr 13, 2004 17:14:04 GMT -5
Here is the evil conservative again. Let's see Maller worked 20 at the U.S. forest service, do forgive me for trying to use common sence here. I guess I'll never be a good liberal, She quit because of family problems.
Does quiting a job help or hurt your "family problems"
You work for a place for 20 years and don't get a pention. Who's fault is this.
You now whine about not having health insurance, BECAUSE YOU QUIT A JOB.
You no longer have the right to whine about not having health insurance because you quit the job. Believe it or not people when you have kids you can no longer just quit for STUPID reasons, and I'll bet you anything she quit for a stupid reason, You keep the job even if you hate it untill something else comes along.
I know they are not telling the whole story here because it does not fit in with their bleeding heart liberal bulls***.
I refuse to accept that I have to take care of all these people just because things didn't go the way they wanted. The mother of four kids all about a year apart. 300 for food stamps, add the welfare they get. add the help the local churches give them add the other charities give them.
The main reason that kids starve is stupid nelectful lazy parents. and the social service that refuse to do their job unless forced to.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Apr 14, 2004 2:52:16 GMT -5
Well Gal, some of us don't believe that human suffering should be a for profit business. I know it's really difficult to understand, but some of us think that it's monstrous that people actually start businesses whose sole purpose is to make a profit from people who are sick or hurt. I can understand that this is a difficult concept, but, really, it's true. Some people even have the audacity to think that regardless of whether or not you have money, someone with cancer should be able to get proper treatment. Whoa, talk about evil liberals. Holy smokes. Next thing you know, they'll actually want everyone to enjoy the same civil liberties. What will the world come to next?
And, how dare this woman change jobs and then be laid off. Just because she maybe didn't want to commute three hours a day to her forestry job and she already had another job lined up. How dare she? Who does she think she is? What kind of horrible monster is she? Taking another job as an admin assistant. What an irresponsible person she is. It is completely her fault that she got laid off. Oh my god. Gal you are so right. I have seen the light! I will join the cause to make sure that single mothers everywhere are forced into jobs that conflict with their lives and make bloody sure that they never have the temerity to look for something better.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Apr 15, 2004 17:28:53 GMT -5
Take a close look at some of these "charities" they help themselves more than the people they claim to help.
And yes if you have kids and have to drive 3 hours to work, then that's what you do. I know that dirty word, "responbility", sticks in the throat of liberals and they feel everyone else should raise their kids.
I have a different view on things, it's called reality. You can quit your job and starve your kids, but don't think for a second I'll feel pity for people who make bad desisions. And you still can't complain about not having health insurance.
And I always liked people who go to extremes. They are always entertaining. How lying about starving kids just to get money for a con job. And what does feeding kids have to do with cancer, (extremes).
Maybe not in Texas, but in many other places if you need help with medical problems you will generally get the help, but not always.
Thinking about the left, how would they handle this: If a mother of 8 children was stealing food stamps and using fake names to get more welfare, should she be charged with a crime or just get a slap on the wrist because "she has kids?"
If someone was faking having cancer to get the insurance money should they be charged with a crime?
"Well I have children so I should be able to break any laws I want to help the children."
Yes what a great example, no wonder kids grow up screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by nonameapparent on Apr 25, 2004 14:01:45 GMT -5
Sorry to get off-topic but this is something I have been wondering for awhile. What does "liberal" mean to an american?, because as I have understood it, it means something different than what a european understands by it.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 25, 2004 14:23:01 GMT -5
What does "liberal" mean to an american? In most cases, liberal=left=Democratic party and conservative=right=Republican party. The really really simplified version is that liberals/Democrats are closer to the socialism end of the spectrum and conservatives/Republicans are closer to the capitalism side. Also, Democrats tend to favor more government and laws while Republicans lean the other way and think the less government involvement the better. www.politicalcompass.org/
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Apr 25, 2004 14:28:35 GMT -5
Basically liberal and socialist are the same. Liberal in America and socialist elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Apr 25, 2004 22:12:16 GMT -5
Gal, that's not even close. The Dem's in America are raging right wing conservatives compared to the left in other countries. Heck, Clinton cut welfare, goverment spending and a host of social programs while in power. That's hardly socialist.
Both mainstream political parties in America are right of center when compared to Europe. The Republicans are further right and the Dem's are less.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 26, 2004 7:57:12 GMT -5
Go to the Political Compass website and click on the "US Primaries 2004" link on the left side. You'll see that all but two of the potential Democratic candidates are right of center.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Apr 27, 2004 8:22:49 GMT -5
Ok, quick poli sci 020 lesson.
Socialism is a system of economics and governance. Under a socialist system, the means of production are owned communally by all workers. Socialism requires heavy central planning and is seen under Marx as a stepping stone on the way to Communism. Socialist systems are marked by a strong welfare state and large amounts of government control and regulation of business.
Liberal politics refers more to the idea of personal freedoms. A liberal tends to be "left of center", meaning that many of the liberal agenda points do coincide with socialist ideals. The idea of social welfare is a good example of this. Liberals tend to look to the government to solve social issues instead of relying on market factors.
For example, under a right wing system, unemployment insurance would be privatized into an insurance system the same as say, house insurance. Market would determine prices and premiums and would also determine payouts. A liberal system uses the government to normalize unemployment insurance so that it is equal for all citizens. Money is collected by the government and distributed by the same.
Now, in the above case, there are pros and cons for both methods. That's beside the point though.
Calling liberals socialists is not correct. A liberal can believe in free market economies for private business, for example. A socialist would see free market economies as the source of social problems.
Right wing conservatives attempt to lump liberals and libertarians with socialists because of the negative connotations of socialism in America. For other countries which have a more socialist bent, we would not equate one with the other.
|
|