Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not deceiving. Are you seriously saying the fix for poor wages is getting married? Do you want to live in the 19th century where social mobility was nearly zero because everyone knew their place? That's what you are advocating.
Oh so NOW you want a secular government, when the Bible tells you to feed and clothe people and you don’t want to. That might mean you have less disposable income and your burger is $12 and that’s just not ok.
Yeah they do. You seem ill informed. No they can't get it directly from the feds, but through the states they most certainly do.
Fine you just don't that. And we'll still believe that it is our business because its our money they are spending. Its not theirs. If it were we would mind our own business.
You must be talking about someone else. I've always tried to steer clear of religious arguments against those things. Too many prople dont care or believe and it just falls on deaf ears. There are plenty of other arguments to use.
Yes, the child will receive benefits as a US citizen, but the parents will not. Those benefits received wouldn't be enough to feed the entire family.
According to that report, those eligible for benefits are US born children (citizens), refugees, asylees, and those who become lawful permanent residents after 5 years. No individuals who are in the country illegally are included.
This whole thread has been about how to enforce a somewhat clandestine caste system because some people can only measure their success by counting the number of people they're able to look at and readily see are more destitute than they are. The "if I can't have more, you need to have less" mentality. I'll never reach the peak of Everest, so I'll just point and laugh at the lack of gumption of everybody who didn't get as far as I did.
Fun fact: my grandfather (who was on Snap towards the end) was losing tons of weight for no discernable (at the time) reason, and he was a pill about sitting down to meals or remembering to eat because his hunger drive was absent. He loved candy, though. So you know what the nutritionist suggested? Candy bars, specifically one's with nuts in it, and not the low-sugar candy. When he thinks of it, grab a candy and eat it. One small Snickers bar, two bites, 80 calories. His doctor signed off on it, calling it brilliant. He (rightly) pointed out getting zero calories of any type and losing 20 pounds a month for a guy who weighed 180 to start was a disaster and making a man who didn't feel hungry sit down and eat a well-rounded meal of suitable calories and nutrients wasn't going to happen. It was better to eat something and get the calories needed for basic bodily functions than it was to adopt a "I'm on a diet so I shouldn't eat candy" mentality for somebody who didn't need to lose weight. He went from eating an average of 400 calories a day to eating about 1,700. He stopped losing weight, his heart murmur eased, his headaches, anemia, and exhaustion all levelled out, and he went on to live another several years. His weight was never a concern again.I'd forgotten "nutrition" was in the very name. Do Snicker bars assist with nutrition?
Honestly, I've seen funner facts.
But you KNOW that's not the EXACT verse right?
Right wingers want the poor to make healthy food choices and so they want to find ways to CONTROL what those people eat.
I happen to be disabled with a mix of conditions that would make working hard ( most entry level positions have skills I could not do or at least not without getting fired for not be quick and effective enough ( this is even IF I could shower, dress and get there ( none of which I can do without assistance or in a reasonable time. I still feel that while disabled people deserve some quality of life you cannot expect the same benefits that other people get simply because at the end of the day beggars can't be choosers and so if you say I need assistance with the basics you cannot be particularly choosly about what you get ( Now, that is not to say that they should get NOTHING ( in fact I feel that SSI (the welfare disability program should get some more money and be based on where you live and not a flat rate. My point in all of this is that even as someone who IS disabled I realize that if other people are supporting me I cannot expect the finer things. Currently, I am on my late father's SSDI (the non-welfare disability benefits there is and should be a difference.
I absolutely not ill informed. You forget, my darling, I work extensively with food-related charity which includes having counselors come in and help people apply for benefits. Guess what comes up on page one of the application, both paper and online? "Are you a US citizen?" followed by "Do you have valid documentation that proves US citizenship?"
They most certainly do not. See above.
So if I were to see somebody at the grocery store who I know as my regular Wal-Mart cashier, walk up to their cart, and tell them what was in it was my business because my money goes to the employer which pays them and therefore it's my job to tell them how to spend what was my money... Would that make me a sane person? Or a crazy person?
It's not super compassionate to the disabled to cut their benefits or defund Snap because you've got a superficial snapshot of another third party's life, judged them by a non-standard you specific and arbitrary metric, found them wanting, and labeled them a leech, and therefore because they're not conducting themselves to your standard, everybody's benefits should be cut.
Ah, the ol' bootstraps mentality. The one people like to trot out because it means they don't have to credit luck, generational advantages, and other outside factors for their own success. The one that they use to assuage the fear that the poverty they see could never happen to them because they're just better at life than somebody else. Harder workers. Smarter. Faster. Better.
Noted and accepted. Thank you.
I listen to facts, not subjectivity. I take those facts and fold them in with my knowledge. Having worked a significant time each year on food-related causes, "most people are lazy and lack gumption" is not enough to overcome what I know as truth based off of what I see, have experienced, and know to be statistically correct.
So you're not talking about a large segment of the population that needs the service but undermines the validity of your position that people who are in these scenarios are there because they lack grit, a work ethic, and spend their money poorly...?
So we should marry off the women and round up and institutionalize the mentally ill...?
Fair enough. I'll go do some research. I'll ask AI how many Americans don't like to eat food.
I'd rather we had an ethical secular government that didn't feel that the way to get by is to set up a financial caste system through hiding advancement, healthcare, and a standard level of basic living behind an unbelievably high pay wall and/or require adequate performance of humility and shame in order to access it.
