If people don't want to be hungry... - A Place at the Table (2013) Discussion

[–] druid44608 11 years ago

I agree. People that can't afford kids should not have kids, period. I also believe that no one should be allowed more than 2 ever, period.

reply

[–] akademic78 11 years ago

You're one of the reasons the world is *beep* up, congratulations. Pathetic scumbag.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

The world is screwed up because there are too many poor people and they keep on breeding and getting subsidized by the government. I would rather pay for condoms than food stamps.

reply

[–] akademic78 11 years ago

Another fvcking idiot. Too many poor people? What's that, like a class in a role-playing video game? Shut the F up. You should first trace the reason as to WHY are there so many poor/unemployed people, and deal with THAT, not demand them not to have kids, you DUMB SH*T.

Have a nice day.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

The why is that poor people have too many kids because they are subsidized. Women who receive assistance have approximately 3 times as many kids as compared to women who don't.

Also I don't demand that they don't have kids I just demand that I don't have to pay for them.

reply

[–] akademic78 11 years ago

And how about, you deal with the SYSTEM, not the people affected by it? What a miserable *beep* you must be. Deal with the SOURCE, the capitalist pyramid where 2% own the other 98. Oh, that's not a problem, is it? Lol.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

How is that causing poor women to have more kids.

Oh no, the rich have too much in the way of assets. I must exercise my womb.

Must be nice to go through life not having to think.

reply

[–] muncieboy 11 years ago

Hey usmdj,

"Must be nice to go through life not having to think."

I guess you're also the kind of person who sees people who shop at Walmart and think, "Yep, that's great." All the while, Walmart doesn't provide health insurance or a liveable wage for its employees. All the while as a business practice they buy products in bulk from the lowest bidder, products that are made overseas by companies who pay their employees at little as possible. All the while, Walmart records profits in the billions.

Poor people buying stuff made by poor people.

Rich CEOs making millions off the transactions.

And your thought: let's blame the poor people.

Must be nice to go through life not having to think.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Walmart requires their employees to have babies? How does that even pertain?

My theory is that poor people go hungry because they have kids. I am not "blaming" them I am stating what I theorize to be a fact.

I was specifically stating that the previous poster obviously does not think or even express his thoughts in a clear manner which he did in multiple posts in a rude and demeaning manner and I did not stoop to his level until his third such post. There was no need in your case to start insulting my posts until we had reached the same level of animosity. But I forget this is IMDB and this is normal.

reply

[–] Larrymon2000 11 years ago

LOL people should also stop blaming the system at every turn. It's a combination of both. Many of these poor people don't try hard enough to get their kids educated or try to be responsible parents. As a result, the cycle continues. And, of course, usmdj is right, they have far too many children. They can barely support one, and yet because of ignorance, irresponsibility, and thinking "the system will feed me", they just keep pumping them out.

It's a harsh reality.

Guy 1: Oh My God, I found a penny!
Guy 2: You B@stard!

reply

[–] SaxAndViolins 11 years ago

Agreed!

"Look! There's Gregory Peck's bicycle!"

reply

[–] knoxrick 11 years ago

Yikes. Nice if you to say. I'm glad I don't have to depend on you for anything.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

You shouldn't have too. Take care of yourself and your self imposed kids.

reply

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

You're so right, genius. It's just that simple. Every family in poverty and hunger is there because they deserve it, because they decided to have kids when they shouldn't have. Nobody's ever lost a job through no fault of their own, or had to sell off everything to pay medical debts so hospital administrators and insurance companies could keep the Lexuses and bonuses.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Wow you are right. I am a genius.

There are such things as unemployment and forgiveness of medical debts or bankruptcy so don't give me those excuses.

The average salary in Egypt is $3600/year. Obviously the "hungry" here are just not trying to feed themselves hard enough.

reply

[–] punkgirly 11 years ago

While I do have sympathy for children whose parents are poor, I do actually agree with you! Far too many adults are uneducated or work minimum wage jobs and then get pregnant or get someone pregnant. And then they wonder why they continue to live in poverty. They wouldn't have that problem if they hadn't bred in the first place.It's simple cause-and-effect.

reply

[–] BBB 11 years ago

How can that one girl afford a Blackberry ($90 a month) and regular dye jobs ($50-$100) but can't afford a $1 box of spaghetti to feed her family?

"If this were another country and they fed their kids like this we'd be at war, man!" -Jeff Bridges

No. No we wouldn't.

reply

[–] creatorof2002 11 years ago

I believe if you are a person who is totally unprepared to properly take care of them which INCLUDES FINANCIALLY then just having children is in and of itself a form of child abuse. It disgusts me that people who are impoverished and can barely feed themselves choose to reproduce in our already over crowded world then I am guilt tripped into donating to stupid charities like "African Relief".

reply

[–] shempXIV 11 years ago

My 2 cents:

Cent 1: I'm NOT blaming the poor for their situation...BUT there IS such a thing as personal responsibility. ie, IF you cannot afford to take care of yourself properly and/or afford to have kids, WHY KEEP HAVING KIDS IF YOU'RE BROKE?

Cent 2: There IS a system in place that exploits the poor, and if one cannot SEE that, one is deceiving one's self. (But I'm NOT saying that EVERYthing is "the system's fault.")

That said, why are so many poor Americans FAT? I'm not minimizing poverty in the USA, BUT many of us routinely pay $2-$3 dollars for a cup of coffee or $4 for a pint of beer yet there are many places in the world where many folks MAKE (ie, earn) that much $ IN A WEEK. We Americans b&tch a lot but we don't know how good we have it.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

They keep having kids because they get paid more to have more. Women on welfare in the US have 3 times as many kids as women not on welfare. Stop subsidizing the production of more welfare recipients.

reply

[–] muncieboy 11 years ago

Usually, I play the part of criticizing people for being unnecessarily rude on IMDB.

I wasn't being rude or belligerent. That's not my style.

You have to know that by starting a post "If you don't want to be poor...don't have kids", you're not beginning with a neutral tone. It's judgmental. It's, yes, rude.

Have you seen this movie? Do you know how these people became pregnant?

Even if you have seen the movie, the answer is no, you don't.

Do some people have kids to get welfare? Sure, I suppose so.

But this point was raised in the film: we are so concerned as a society that some people are getting away with something, we begin to focus solely on that and not on all of the other inconsistencies and injustices.

I would tolerate your rant on opportunistic welfare moms if you simultaneously voiced equal displeasure with opportunistic businessmen and CEOs and investment bankers who literally scam billions and billions of dollars from the system all the time, the accumulation of which is hands down more than any welfare recipient could ever dream of.

But you don't mention this. At all.

So, therefore, you're only picking on poor people.

I don't have any respect or patience for that argument because it's myopic and small minded.

reply

[–] muncieboy 11 years ago

Also, for many people who have kids, it wasn't the "having kids" part that made it hard to put food on the table. It was the tanking of the economy and all of the dominoes that fell after that out of our control, like losing one's job due to cuts. You make it sounds so simple, when it's not. Such oversimplification is insulting frankly.

And please don't respond if you haven't seen the film.

If you have, I'd honestly love to hear how you can rationalize a response that defends your argument.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

I do rant about stupid politicians that let the government be scammed, just not on this board.

I have not yet seen the movie but anticipate, from the trailer, that I will be unable to complete the viewing of this film. I will when it gets to a format that I will not be forced to pay additional money to view. This is due to fact that uninhibited liberalism angers me.

I assume they got their kids like most people do, through sexual intercourse although I am probably wrong in a small percentage. I mean there was at least one documented case of virgin birth and I think toilet seats should support their kids like everyone else.

I am not concerned that they are getting away with anything. I don't have a problem with people giving money to hungry people. I object to being forced to pay for it. I see the best solution to the problem as not perpetuating and increasing the number of hungry people.

The point that you state is raised in the film is irrelevant to me. I just don't care. I actually see feeding starving people as an injustice. If I feed them they will actually be unhappy longer. If I don't feed them, they will die or learn to feed themselves.

I am not "picking on poor people", I am saying stop making me pay for them. Your opinion that it is myopic and small minded is also irrelevant to me.

reply

[–] shempXIV 11 years ago

re: The point that you state is raised in the film is irrelevant to me. I just don't care. I actually see feeding starving people as an injustice. If I feed them they will actually be unhappy longer. If I don't feed them, they will die or learn to feed themselves.

GOLLY, what a warm, COMPASSIONATE person you are! I'll bet you're an acolyte of Ayn "I got mine, **** you" Rand...who believed "giving" was BAD until, of course, SHE HERSELF was elligible for SOCIAL SECURITY...which she collected.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Gee I forgot about social security. A program people pay into and then receive a benefit out. Where the input and output are somewhat balanced and if you don't pay in then you don't receive benefits. (Except for some disabled)

I am talking about welfare where a mother of six makes more money than a new college grad.

If they don't have kids then their kids won't go hungry. Fortunately if you stop feeding them the problem stops being self perpetuating.

I have dogs and cats. I feed them and shelter them and neuter them so I won't have to feed or shelter more to the point where I can no longer feed or shelter them. And I like my dogs and cats better than most humans.

reply

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 11 years ago

I have dogs and cats. I feed them and shelter them and neuter them so I won't have to feed or shelter more to the point where I can no longer feed or shelter them. And I like my dogs and cats better than most humans.

That's wonderful because I used to work as a volunteer at an animal shelter and you just can't believe the people who don't take this responsiblity.

I've never seen this documentary, but hope to. A bit OffTopic: I'm curious when, or if, Social Security and Medicare could possibly become welfare again? An example, I have a friend who worked for about 20 years then became disabled due to an injury. She's been on Social Security Disability for about 10 years now. Since then she was also diagnosed with cancer and had months of chemo, as well as other operations. Now her cancer (they believe) has returned again. Although, I'd be willing to bet she has 'out spent' the money she paid into Social Security and Medicare by this time. Funny how they don't call her a 'welfare recipient' like they do with others (well, maybe some people do from what she once told me).

Also, most people don't seem to do this with housewives who haven't worked - perhaps only briefly - then when their husbands die they will sometimes go on to live for another 10, 15 (or more) years off of their husbands Social Security benefits. People rarely refer to them as 'welfare recipients,' but in reality they are.

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Not really if you look at Social Security as a life insurance/disability insurance plan paid in installments and not as a single disbursement. If you die early then you lost out and if you die late then you make out.

reply

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 11 years ago

That's interesting. I didn't know that!

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

reply

[–] muncieboy 11 years ago

Well, if you are okay with letting starving kids die, then I have nothing left to say except I hope they're aren't many more like you.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Duh. You are me by not donating every last penny to food banks. Basically everyone in the world is like me. Everyone of you are hypocrites. Millions of people starving in third world countries and yet we do nothing. Ask yourself why aren't you in Africa right now feeding them.

I went to South America in the Peace Corp for two years and I now have less sympathy for them than I do now. We kept giving them money and food and they kept breeding. More money meant more kids. They wouldn't or couldn't stop.

reply

[–] AtheistRevolution 11 years ago

I traveled to third world countries and countries that have a better social welfare program than US. And you know what I learned? When people are starving its usually the fault of corrupt governments and the few elites in every country that hoards everything there is to own. Like Carlos Slim being the richest person in the world. Mexico has a GDP over $1 trillion and almost half the population is under the poverty line.What the hell is going on?US shouldn't have any starving people in poverty. Places with the least amount of poverty are Sweden,Norway,etc. Its no surprise that countries with subsidized higher education do the best across the scale. The costs of university,health care,etc in US compared to other industrial countries don't even make sense.The costs for foreign students to attend university in these countries aren't even close to US costs for domestic students. US costs are off the scale and not because of supply and demand but corruption,profiteering,etc.

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

And your point is that other countries use the stolen money better?

reply

[–] bbojojo99 9 years ago

That said, why are so many poor Americans FAT?

Because the quality of the food that poor Americans can afford is not good (living on chips and ramen and canned soup and cookies). It's garbage, when it's all you eat, and full of starch, sugar, fat, and salt. It's nutrient-deficient food, and much of the food donated to food banks/soup kitchens is, as well. It's not healthy veggies with fiber, lots of lean meat full of protein, fresh fruit with natural sugar vs. highly refined machine-made sugar. Yes, it's possible to eat healthy food if you're poor, but access to it and sometimes the cost of it makes it difficult. I've been on both sides of the coin. I know how to find healthy food and do it on the cheap, but I live in an area where it's not hard to find. And when children are eating things that have poor nutrient value day in and day out, they can't learn in school, and don't often know the difference between bad and good eating, then grow up doing the same with their kids. It's a cycle. It's hard to believe there are actually people who exist that think fast food/convenience food/living on chips and ramen is not unhealthy, but there are.

----
"I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need is a lobotomy and some tights." -John Bender

reply

[–] tbor8 11 years ago

The world should place sanctions on countries for food insecurity and income inequality..

reply

[–] lynda618 11 years ago

How fabulous that you have discovered the solution to the problem! Bravo! I'm sure your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Your lack of compassion clearly identifies you as a Republican (assuming you're American). In that case, please speak to your party about their cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and similar groups, which LET WOMEN TAKE RESPONSIBLE ACTION IN FAMILY PLANNING!

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

Don't worry I won't mention you in my acceptance speach.

And I am a Libertarian so I don't disapprove of Planned Parenthood although I don't really approve of spending money on it. I think people should buy their own condoms and birth control devices or drugs.

reply

[–] thenybo 11 years ago

Why don't we just kill poor people, that would be much easier. And then you could get to feel even more superior.

"Meanwhile in glass of lemon juice"

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

So you equate making people take care of themselves with killing them. Makes sense to me. Do you have any more illogical gems to pronounce?

reply

[–] American_Beauty87 11 years ago

Agreed! I was appalled that the people in the movie didn't take any responsibility for where they are. They should have been talking to young girls about the choices they make instead of begging the government for more money with an air of entitlement.

reply

[–] sopclod 11 years ago

Being employed full time as a police officer is being irresponsible? The problem is that jobs paying living wages are disappearing. Secondary education is unobtainable for a large portion of the population, not that a college degree is a guarantee of anything.

The US is the wealthiest country in the world, but the wealth is being hoarded and children are starving. That's a problem. You can say this or that segment of the population should stop having kids, but saying that isn't going to solve anything. Unless you enforce birth control, which is draconian, that observation won't help anyone.

reply

[–] usmdj 11 years ago

No, the problem is that Americans have been overpaid for the last 60 years or so and now they are finally starting to equal out. The average recipient on welfare makes 6 times what the average worker in Egypt makes and the cost of living there is 70 percent of the cost of living here.

You need to redefine your perception of living wage to something based in reality.

reply