This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
If you just kill off the needy, there’s no needy for aid.
Problem $olved.
Maybe the needy should abstain from taking on more responsibilities than they can project they’ll have the means to pay for. I wouldn’t sign for a mortgage where the payment was $10,000 a month, even if I could bamboozle a bank into approving it somehow.
Nor would I delude myself, or bamboozle another person, into getting me pregnant were I not assured I would have the means to pay for the child, or multiple children, independent of help from charities, the government, or friends and relatives.
Who in the hell takes on unnecessary situations requiring money when they have no money?
I know right? Why didn’t Bonnie Bridgforth get assurances from her fiance that he would not go to jail in the future before getting married and having 5 children? /s
USE IT OR LOSE IT. Dems should immediately pass a bill to recapture this shit unless it is used for its intended purpose. The bill could easily provide for a baseline reserve percentage that the state is permitted to keep on account while still forcing them to either refund the balance to the federal gov’t or spend it on the poor. Manchin and Sinema should be all over supporting such a thing.
Lota bamboozling going on this morning. War on the Poor far more effective than War on the 1%. It’s always been a one way street - downhill.
And we all justifiably bitch b/c it’s all so God damn demeaning and destructive for all of us who give a shit about anything. having the caring gene. And it’s also so God damn defeating and destructive for the victims.
Except the game is to kill off the needy and then create new needy out of the people who were heretofore not needy.
There is no war on the 1%. Unless and until they are made to live in mortal fear of the rest of us every single day, then no war is being waged.
They need to understand that they have it backwards: we do not enjoy our meager subsistence at their sufferance or due to their benevolence…rather, they enjoy their largesse at ours.
Twenty-five years later, however, states are using this freedom to do nothing at all with large sums of the money.
Thanks Bill. Thanks Hillary. Hope the door hit you both in the ass.
Carefully vetting the people you mate with has been recommended by all cultures for a few thousand years.
All “conservative” plans are based on the die-off model. Pandemic preparedness. Homelessness. Poverty. Environmental Protections. Endangered Species, democracy…
It’s the standard libertarian “more for me” way of viewing these kinds of pesky issues…
I have this reaction too. But assuming that cases like this represents an entire population getting $ they “don’t deserve” because of “stupid decisions” is flat out wrong. Plus, it doesn’t solve any problems-not for people in similar circumstances, nor the majority of folks who aren’t in such extreme situations but need help, nor for the community at large who continue to live with, and perpetuate, a cycle of poverty and hopelessness.
It’s the soundest investment there is, for governments to ensure that kids are decently fed, decently cared for, and decently educated.
You’re missing the point that these kids didn’t get to choose their parents. It’s aid to the innocent children, not the parents.
Multiple generations of kids from challenging environments and societal backgrounds that were “decently fed, decently cared for, and decently educated” via programs of the government, churches and charities reach adulthood, and have another generation of children requiring the intervention of all the above outside sources, to assure THAT next generation they’ve spawned is decently fed, decently cared for, and decently educated.
Rinse and repeat.
And successfully practiced by a few percent of each generation.
Interesting Dickens quote. Remind me again - was that from “A Christmas Carol”, or from “Bleak House”?
Except the game is to kill off the needy and then create new needy out of the people who were heretofore not needy.
You mean I guess the less-poor. But too many in that predicament are the working poor, working fulltime while still living in poverty. WTF? And then there’s the once all powerful middle-class, where a high school education would secure you a job and after a few years, your own home. And now a college degree is required to get you into the starting gate.
And yes, all things change but why do I feel like we’re going backwards?
“Are there no prisons? No workhouses for the poor?”
Glad to hear, stevie, that you have made all the right choices and haven’t had any bad luck in your life.
Many others are not so fortunate.
Some of these children in need of food assistance exist solely because a man raped a woman, or committed incest against a girl, who had little or no choice in the matter. This isn’t the kids’ fault or the mother’s fault from insufficient vetting or other bad decisions.
They don’t want to kill them, just make them hungry enough to work for 7.25 an hour.