View Single Post
Old 07-25-2019, 01:02 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think if a single parent loses their job, gets injured, or for some other reason can't afford rent/food/medical care for a time deserves to have the state take their children away? Wouldn't SNAP etc. be cheaper for society then assuming the entire responsibility for raising that child? You can't always force parents to be as responsible as you wish them to be, but those kids are still Americans and deserve to be treated as such and shouldn't be allowed to starve to death or die from treatable conditions due to lack of insurance or ability to pay medical bills, and simply taking every kid away from parents you deem irresponsible by your definition does not seem like what we should be doing in this country. Maybe we just need to accept that some people are not going to be as responsible as you want them to be, but innocent kids should not bear the cost of that. If we are to be the enlightened society that we claim to be, then maybe we just need to deal with that reality instead of trying to justify why we don't need to help those kids.
Can I also pick the most abused case and make it my standard to discuss?
I said nothing about I, or me at all. That is YOU, assigning guilt instead of reading what was written. We were discussing how personal responsibility was not bigoted and YOU started talking about specifics? Why?

To answer the question more directly, SNAP, any social safety net at all is perfectly fine with me but there are plenty of cases out there where personal responsibility should be a bigger value on those we are helping. Temporary assistance is great, for all the cases, even the ones you would care to define. So maybe you don't strip kids from parents who just temporarily lost their job. What about parents who haven't worked for a year 0r 2 or 5 years? What about abusive parents?