Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cincinnati65

Agreed, but the larger goal should be the reduction of Women, Infants and Children with no visible means of support, especially a reduction in the numbers of Infants and Children born to a guaranteed life on the dole.

If only intelligence and fertility were proportional.


72 posted on 02/19/2016 11:28:12 AM PST by relictele (Principiis obsta & Finem respice - Resist The Beginnings & Consider The Ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: relictele

Agreed. My point was if you HAVE to have a program as a safety net to feed the poor, I would much rather have one structured like WIC, than the free for all EBT has become.


73 posted on 02/19/2016 11:30:12 AM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: relictele

I’d go for the first 3 kids can be on welfare but no benefits for any over that number. No, that’s not harsh. It would cut down on baby mamas bedding down with every Tom, Devontre and Jose that comes along. The kids aren’t going to starve because those school aged get free breakfast and lunch and some get dinner and throughout the summer. There’s always food banks and churches and all the relatives who will lie and add any excess kids to their welfare applications.


116 posted on 02/19/2016 12:42:33 PM PST by bgill (CDC site, "We still do not know exactly how people are infected with Ebola")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson