Anyone see CNN last night?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

ever consider that only a few "sensationalist" cases make newspaper headlines?

We can speculate just how many of these cases actually come to light through the media - but given that we're talking about a lot of individual families here I think its somewhat unreasonable to generalise according to type.

It seems that you just want to believe that a plurality of single parents are the aforementioned lazy money grubbers and don't deserve any kind of support or assistance.

Its perhaps the easiest thing of all to be dismissive, rather than to realise that there are people in genuine need.

[natty bumppo 297]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

ever consider that only a few "sensationalist" cases make newspaper headlines?

We can speculate just how many of these cases actually come to light through the media - but given that we're talking about a lot of individual families here I think its somewhat unreasonable to generalise according to type.

It seems that you just want to believe that a plurality of single parents are the aforementioned lazy money grubbers and don't deserve any kind of support or assistance.

Its perhaps the easiest thing of all to be dismissive, rather than to realise that there are people in genuine need.

What I believe? ... do you think you're omniscient ... sorry ...

I simply posted another angle into the discussion ... an angle that has been mentioned to have merit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

ever consider that only a few "sensationalist" cases make newspaper headlines?

We can speculate just how many of these cases actually come to light through the media - but given that we're talking about a lot of individual families here I think its somewhat unreasonable to generalise according to type.

It seems that you just want to believe that a plurality of single parents are the aforementioned lazy money grubbers and don't deserve any kind of support or assistance.

Its perhaps the easiest thing of all to be dismissive, rather than to realise that there are people in genuine need.

What I believe? ... do you think you're omniscient ... sorry ...

I simply posted another angle into the discussion ... an angle that has been mentioned to have merit.

Kinda why I said "...it seems". If that isn't the case, then it isn't and there's no problem.

It scarcely needs to be pointed out that public welfare is a more nuanced discussion that simply classifying people according to the lowest common denominator (and to head off the possibility that you take umbridge over that statement - no I am not saying this specifically about you), but it does seem to be trend with discussions about welfare that its ok to smear the recipients of those programs in such a way as to suggest that noone should receive financial assistance.