Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:12:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:12:47 AM EDT by gunchyck]

Since this will always be a society where we give welfare $ to undeserving people... Wouldn't it be nice if there were some REAL consequences for ACCEPTING that $?

Like say, a person is having a hard time, applies for welfare. They qualify, but to get the money, they have to be sterilized.

If we did this, I bet in 20 years we would be spending less than half of what we do now on Welfare programs.

If the person doesn't want to be sterilized... don't take the money.

What do you guys think?

Is it "fair"
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:13:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:14:35 AM EDT by Schwoogie]
There is no such thing as fair welfare. It will never be fair to take money from my paycheck and give it to someone who doesn't work.

As for your sterilization plan, I think it's sick and twisted.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:15:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:15:57 AM EDT by david_g17]
i say, if you receive government money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

conflict of interest.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:17:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:17:37 AM EDT by Schwoogie]

Originally Posted By david_g17:
i say, if you receive government money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

conflict of interest.

A LOT of people/businesses receive government money, none of them should be able to vote?

There are plenty of conflicts of interest where voting a certain way can be of personal gain to you- what do you do then?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:18:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
There is no such thing as fair welfare. It will never be fair to take money from my paycheck and give it to someone who doesn't work.

As for your sterilization plan, I think it's sick and twisted.



I know. That is why I prefaced the idea with the statement, "Since this will always be a society where we give welfare $ to undeserving people..."

There are some things that won't change, no matter how much we whine about them.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:19:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:20:32 AM EDT by david_g17]

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:

Originally Posted By david_g17:
i say, if you receive government money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

conflict of interest.

A LOT of people/businesses receive government money, none of them should be able to vote?

There are plenty of conflicts of interest where voting a certain way can be of personal gain to you- what do you do then?



the reason A LOT of people/businesses receive government money is b/c they vote people in who will give it to them.

eta: ok, how about if you recieve funding and do no work - then you can't vote.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:21:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:

Originally Posted By david_g17:
i say, if you receive government money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

conflict of interest.

A LOT of people/businesses receive government money, none of them should be able to vote?

There are plenty of conflicts of interest where voting a certain way can be of personal gain to you- what do you do then?



the reason A LOT of people/businesses receive government money is b/c they vote people in who will give it to them.

Possibly, so all of those people should lose their right to vote??

If I cared enough and had some info on you, I'm sure I could find some type of way that you could gain in some way from voting a certain direction/candidate. You ready to give up your right to vote now?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:39:16 AM EDT

If you receive direct federal welfare = no vote in next federal election cycle.



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:42:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
If you receive direct federal welfare = no vote in next federal election cycle.




Am I the only one that feels restriction is the path to elimination?

I see this as being no different than the gun-grabbers restricting firearms/parts/functions/ammunition/etc. It's just one more step closer to getting rid of it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:42:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
Possibly, so all of those people should lose their right to vote??

No. They still have the "right" to vote just as long as they don't receive direct welfare benefits.

It's their choice.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:44:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
Possibly, so all of those people should lose their right to vote??

No. They still have the "right" to vote just as long as they don't receive direct welfare benefits.

It's their choice.




Aren't you guys thinking short term though?

Do you think sterilization is too harsh? Or that it wouldn't have as much of an impact?

I'm thinking it would have a huge impact, but I could be wrong
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:47:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
If you receive direct federal welfare = no vote in next federal election cycle.




Am I the only one that feels restriction is the path to elimination?

I see this as being no different than the gun-grabbers restricting firearms/parts/functions/ammunition/etc. It's just one more step closer to getting rid of it.



Do you really think that the bleeding hearts will ever allow welfare systems to be eliminated? I just think it's not realistic
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:47:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
Possibly, so all of those people should lose their right to vote??

No. They still have the "right" to vote just as long as they don't receive direct welfare benefits.

It's their choice.




Aren't you guys thinking short term though?

Do you think sterilization is too harsh? Or that it wouldn't have as much of an impact?

I'm thinking it would have a huge impact, but I could be wrong

Sterilization is too "permanent".

I prefer Norplant for women receiving direct welfare during the time they receive it.

I don't know if there's a male-equivalent of Norplant, a temporary means of sterilization.



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:51:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
Possibly, so all of those people should lose their right to vote??

No. They still have the "right" to vote just as long as they don't receive direct welfare benefits.

It's their choice.




Aren't you guys thinking short term though?

Do you think sterilization is too harsh? Or that it wouldn't have as much of an impact?

I'm thinking it would have a huge impact, but I could be wrong

Sterilization is too "permanent".

I prefer Norplant for women receiving direct welfare during the time they receive it.

I don't know if there's a male-equivalent of Norplant, a temporary means of sterilization.



OK, I'll buy that. Good suggestion.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:56:29 AM EDT
Va beach used to say if you had 2 kids and got welfare you had to get noraplant

now personally i have no problem with short term welfare, work it like unemployement you can only get 6 months at a time with a 1 year break in between, that way if a woman has a kid she gets some money to help if she does not have beni;'s from work, but it would be very limited. i also like NY citys method... ie job training and limited beni's. Also prince georges county in maryland ( a very demoncrat county ) made woman give them the names of the fathers of their children to get health beni's then they went after the fathers
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:56:30 AM EDT
indentured voters.

the sick part of it is they are using tax dollars to buy those votes, so the bigwigs don't even have to crack open their own wallets to buy those votes.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:58:51 AM EDT
I found this page when I was looking for pictures of bums this morning.

Here's a strange idea on how to run welfare:

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/welfare-reform.html

America's welfare system degrades the beneficiaries and primarily serves to enrich the administrators. I propose an alternative where welfare recipients remain full citizens of our society.
Our Current System
If I want to get money from the government under the present system, my first task is to convince an administrator that I am helpless, less than a citizen. I must sit in an office, fill out forms, speak to social workers, prove that I can't work, prove that I have no spouse who can work.

Only people who can successful demonstrate incompetence will receive welfare. The side effects of this fact are that

1. a large number of social workers and bureacrats will be employed to determine whether or not would-be recipients are incompetent
2. recipients who have successfully convinced a social worker of their inability to work may also succeed in convincing themselves. They will be lost from the workforce and therefore the tax rolls.

In America, we associate competence and intelligence with wealth. We assume that Ross Perot and Bill Gates must be very smart and hard-working because they are very rich. Conversely, a bum must be very stupid and lazy because he is so poor. So we aren't going to trust him to manage money. Instead, assuming that he has successfully demonstrated his incompetence to survive, we'll give him services. Thus, we spend $4000 per Medicaid subscriber but would never give him the $4000, which would suffice to buy a $2000 annual HMO membership plus a lot of other items that the poor person might value more than extra hospital care.

[For a thought-provoking look at just how badly our current system serves the poor and how well it serves the employees of the Poverty Industry, read Travels with Lizbeth.]
Just Give Them Money
A quick glance at the numbers suggests an obvious solution: just give the welfare recipients the money. All of them would be lifted well above the poverty line if they just got the money instead of the services. Nobel Prize-winning economists have pushed for this kind of welfare system for decades to very little avail. So it seems safe to assume that it is unacceptable to those with political power in developed countries. Perhaps it is still possible to have a system better than our current one. Let's step back for a moment and consider what we'd want out of a welfare system.
An Ideal System
What are the properties of an ideal welfare system? How about

* Those who need help can get help immediately and without having to demonstrate incompetence.
* Those who need help do not become a separate class, set apart from ordinary citizens
* Money is spent delivering valued services rather than paying bureaucrats, social workers, etc.

What does a person need to survive? Food and shelter. What if we just gave food and shelter to any American citizen who asked? You show up at a McDonald's, say "I'm hungry" and the government will give them $2 to feed you. Not every restaurant would be willing to feed you for their $2 government reimbursement, but probably quite a few would be. When you got tired and found yourself without a roof over your head, you'd find the nearest Motel 6 and ask for a "government room". The Feds would reimburse the motel $15 for putting you up.

Not everyone wants to eat $2 meals and sleep in a motel room. If you want to have a house, drive a Lexus, and eat French food, you'll still have to work. But nobody would be forced to live on the streets and eat out of Dumpsters because he couldn't prove to a social worker that he needed help.

Ronald Reagan used to say that he only wanted to help the "truly needy." My system is obviously more open handed than that. A graduate student, a cheap person with a lot of money, and a person who'd lost his wallet would all be likely to avail themselves of these government handouts though under the current system they'd be receiving nothing at all from the Welfare State.

In short, there would be freeloaders.

But under my hare-brained theory, freeloaders help make the system work. A poor person who needs a meal is not standing in a bread line. He is standing in the same line as a cheap businessman in a hurry. He is standing the same line with a physics graduate student. He is staying in the same motel as a traveling family. The existence of freeloaders keeps the poor from becoming a separate class in society.

Freeloaders drive up the cost of the system, but I would expect much less so than the current weight of bureaucracy and case workers. Suppose that fully 20% of the U.S. Population had 2.5 free meals a day (at $2 each) and stayed in a $15 motel room. That's 50 million people times $20/day. A billion dollars/day or $365 billion/year. Congressional Budget Office figures show that our current welfare system cost about $324 billion in 1993. My open-handed system, though, delivers many more services. I'm much happier to pay taxes for the open-handed system because I can see myself as a beneficiary. If I just want to crash for the night when I'm out of town, why spring for a fancy hotel room? If I want a fast meal, why not let Uncle Sam give me back a couple of my tax dollars?

Furthermore, the open-handed system would clean up my neighborhood. There wouldn't be guys sleeping in the streets anymore.
Fraud
If I'm running a restaurant, it would seem like a good idea to tell the government, "I fed 1000 people today, please give me $2000." One needs a cryptography-based card system that prevents restauranteurs and hoteliers from claiming they fed or housed more people than they did. It would certainly be easy to implement if one gave every citizen a card with a magnetic strip. Somewhat tougher would be preserving anonymity. Big Brother shouldn't know that you had a Big Mac at 1:34 pm on March 14, 1998.
Nits
Current government agricultural policies substantially drive up the cost of food. The USDA Food Stamp program is designed to ameliorate the impact of this artificial inflation on the poor. In the absence of a change in agricultural police, my system would become to some extent an increase in welfare for farmers. Were the U.S. to move to a free-market agricultural system by eliminating price supports and import quotas, food costs to restaurants would be lower and presumably they'd be willing to feed citizens for less.

[U.S. citizens are currently limited to eating two foreign peanuts per person per year and one pound of foreign cheese.]
Conclusion
I won't say that my system is optimal. I won't say that I'm smarter than any of the people running the government. However, I do say that American citizens shouldn't have to go hungry or sleep in the streets. We should question the need to pay bureaucrats to decide whether or not people need help. We should consider replacing social workers and bureaucrats with computers processing reports from restaurants, hotels, and other companies who are actually delivering services to Americans who need them.


Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:01:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Since this will always be a society where we give welfare $ to undeserving people... Wouldn't it be nice if there were some REAL consequences for ACCEPTING that $?

Like say, a person is having a hard time, applies for welfare. They qualify, but to get the money, they have to be sterilized.

If we did this, I bet in 20 years we would be spending less than half of what we do now on Welfare programs.

If the person doesn't want to be sterilized... don't take the money.

What do you guys think?

Is it "fair"



I don't think that requiring sterilization in exchange for pubic aid is a reasonable demand. In fact, its downright barbaric and uncivilized.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:13:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 11:16:50 AM EDT by scotty1911]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

I don't think that requiring sterilization in exchange for pubic aid is a reasonable demand. In fact, its downright barbaric and uncivilized.



tc strikes again

edit to add

so TC how would you feel if they said fine you get welfare but if you get preg then you loose welfare and have the .gov supply the birth control. that way they have the choice if they get preg or not. i mean just give them the birth control patch and condoms. it makes them accountable for opeing their legs and not being safe
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:18:38 AM EDT
The problem with the sterilization would be that every piece of shit that had it done would be spreading STDs like wildfire. No fear of becoming some ho's babies daddy so I can go bang everything!!

This would not be good. A better solution is just eliminate the program all together. It would be tought to lay around all day not doing shit if you had to actually pay for your own stuff.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:43:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
so TC how would you feel if they said fine you get welfare but if you get preg then you loose welfare and have the .gov supply the birth control. that way they have the choice if they get preg or not. i mean just give them the birth control patch and condoms. it makes them accountable for opeing their legs and not being safe


Also unrealistic. You are going to strip benefits away from someone as soon as they have another mouth to feed? That punishes the child for the parents actions.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:46:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
so TC how would you feel if they said fine you get welfare but if you get preg then you loose welfare and have the .gov supply the birth control. that way they have the choice if they get preg or not. i mean just give them the birth control patch and condoms. it makes them accountable for opeing their legs and not being safe


Also unrealistic. You are going to strip benefits away from someone as soon as they have another mouth to feed? That punishes the child for the parents actions.



So your solution is to teach the parents that it is ok to be irresponsible for their own lives and the lives of their offspring, and as a BONUS, we'll GIVE YOU MONEY, as a reward!

What is you solution? Because it sounds like your saying, give them more money...
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:58:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So your solution is to teach the parents that it is ok to be irresponsible for their own lives and the lives of their offspring, and as a BONUS, we'll GIVE YOU MONEY, as a reward!

What is you solution? Because it sounds like your saying, give them more money...



Unlike the armchair warriors who think they can solve the worlds problems by throwing out solutions like forced sterilizations, there is no easy answer. As for giving them more money, yes, they have more mouths to feed... that means they will need more money.
As for the kids, the bottom line is that that kid is going to need to be adequately cared for. If the parent is unable to do so because their benefits were cut as punishment for getting pregnant, whats that do to that kid? You can call it being irresponsible if you want, but we aren't robots. We live our lives, and sometimes stuff like getting pregnant happens. You don't punish the kids for that. Of course, here we run into the typical pro-life quandry: they don't want the woman to get an abortion, but hey, if she has the kid, lets punish her by cutting her benefits! Real brilliant, people. You'll really be convincing a lot of women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term with THAT as policy!

Ideally you would never have these folks on public aid, but that will never be the case. The solution is to get the parent back in the workforce and off public aid. How to do that is the problem.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:02:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Also unrealistic. You are going to strip benefits away from someone as soon as they have another mouth to feed? That punishes the child for the parents actions.



okay so now we say, you dont have the money to give a child a proper home, food and clothing so they get turned over to the child protective services for adoption by a family that can give all of the above

now the child is better off because they wont have substandard housing and food, the child is not being punished they are getting a better chance at life, and only the parents get punished by loosing their child. before you say the child is loosing its parents this would be done at the age of one month so the child really does not know their birth mother. and the child has a better chance of living in a 2 parent family, not a mother and her boyfriend of the week

TC what is wrong with making some one responsible for there own actions?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:03:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 12:05:59 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Hey here's a novel idea.

No Federal welfare of ANY kind!

NO WIC
NO Federal School Lunch Program
NO Federal School Breakfast Program
NO Federal Headstart Program
NO Food Stamps
NO Child & Adult Care Food Program
NO Aid to families with dependant children
NO Public Housing
NO Section 8 Housing
NO Housing Subsidies
NO Heating/utilities subsidies
NO Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
NO Agriculture Subsidies
NO Corporate Subsidies
NO Medicare
NO Medicaid
NO Earned Income Tax Credit

NO MORE FEDERAL CHARITY!!!

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
~ President Grover Cleveland,
1887, in vetoing an appropriation to help drought-stricken counties in Texas.

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity... (such spending) would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
~ President Franklin Pierce,
1854; vetoing an appropriation bill to help the mentally ill.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
~ Thomas Jefferson,
in 1817.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
~ James Madison,
in 1788.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
~ James Madison,
in 1792 objecting to Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist French refugees.


Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:09:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
okay so now we say, you dont have the money to give a child a proper home, food and clothing so they get turned over to the child protective services for adoption by a family that can give all of the above



Absent situations of clear-cut abuse or a demonstrated unwillingness on the part of the parent to provide care for the child...because of neglect, and not money simply being tight...., I am not in favor of children being seperated from their birth parents.

Your solution is barbaric.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:10:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So your solution is to teach the parents that it is ok to be irresponsible for their own lives and the lives of their offspring, and as a BONUS, we'll GIVE YOU MONEY, as a reward!

What is you solution? Because it sounds like your saying, give them more money...



Unlike the armchair warriors who think they can solve the worlds problems by throwing out solutions like forced sterilizations, there is no easy answer. As for giving them more money, yes, they have more mouths to feed... that means they will need more money.
As for the kids, the bottom line is that that kid is going to need to be adequately cared for. If the parent is unable to do so because their benefits were cut as punishment for getting pregnant, whats that do to that kid? You can call it being irresponsible if you want, but we aren't robots. We live our lives, and sometimes stuff like getting pregnant happens. You don't punish the kids for that. Of course, here we run into the typical pro-life quandry: they don't want the woman to get an abortion, but hey, if she has the kid, lets punish her by cutting her benefits! Real brilliant, people. You'll really be convincing a lot of women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term with THAT as policy!

Ideally you would never have these folks on public aid, but that will never be the case. The solution is to get the parent back in the workforce and off public aid. How to do that is the problem.



You really shouldn't open a statement with name-calling, it demeans whatever you have to say after that. Just an observation.

I agree that getting people back into the workforce IS a problem and a hard one to rectify at that. I'm just throwing an idea out there to see how people react to it. I, personally don't think that it is barbaric, but I don't disrespect people who hold that opinion. I'm not a pro-lifer, so I would say that having an abortion is a choice the woman has to make.

My brother is a lawyer, his wife is a lawyer as well. They make a decent living, have a beautiful house on a safe street in a good neighborhood. They have two little boys and right after the second one was born, they decided that my brother would get sterilized. There thinking was that any more kids and they don't thinkthey could give them all the things that they wanted to give them.

This is responsible thinking.

I'm just explaining that that is where I'm coming from.

Also, the world is way too overpopulated.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:10:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Hey here's a novel idea.

No Federal welfare of ANY kind!

NO WIC
NO Federal School Lunch Program
NO Federal School Breakfast Program
NO Federal Headstart Program
NO Food Stamps
NO Child & Adult Care Food Program
NO Aid to families with dependant children
NO Public Housing
NO Section 8 Housing
NO Housing Subsidies
NO Heating/utilities subsidies
NO Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
NO Agriculture Subsidies
NO Corporate Subsidies
NO Medicare
NO Medicaid
NO Earned Income Tax Credit

NO MORE FEDERAL CHARITY!!!



You obviously have forgotten how and why these programs came into existence.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:18:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Hey here's a novel idea.

No Federal welfare of ANY kind!

ect ect ect




+100


i work in sec 8 houseing,its down right pathetic how some folks work the ""system" there are some thatmakeover 2000$ a month without having to work,, BUT theywork under the table part time! hell id be happy if someone paid my rent,, and all mybills yet all i had to do was work part time each week to have fun money.

IMHO

YOu get gov assistance, you work! YIP thats right WORK.
Oh your handicap'd,, well imsure there is a gov office that needs stamps licked or floors cleaned, windows washed, roads cleaned, grass cut. YOu dont show for your alloted amount of time,, you lose your housing.


My tax's pay for folks tohave a free ride,, and i work hard for my money, i owe each year why cuz me and my wife dont own a home,, its the only reason! yet the 700$+ i owe each year is paying for some lazy weed smoking ghetto whore to pop out kids and get her shit for free!

sorry but when i go to work and one ofthese lazy assholes,, that sits home all day dealinga nd smokin throws trash out and tells me " THATS what we pay you for,,"" i kind a get pissed!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:18:28 PM EDT
sterilization is a very good option, but deportation of illegals is even better we must use force and american pride to git this done a very very large majority is for this these illegials are killin the working man. and killing our country and morals. all you have to do is look arond you, the beanieros are breeding like rats 6 or 7 little babbinos pop out of every little shack and we pay for it
after all the unintelligent babymaking factories are deported then we can go after the real crime the no workin lazy drug dealin niggers, I have a dream and america can be beautifull again,hock.gif
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:19:04 PM EDT
Tc where in new york do you live ?

i would be willing to give you a bus ticket to baltimore, then i will take you in the hood and show you some houses. these houses often have no electric, no heat, rats running thru the house, trash piled to the ceiling. as well as parents doing drugs with there babies on the couch next to them, having sex for money with the baby playing on the floor. then as the child gets to the age when they can walk and play they walk out of the house at all hours of the day, cross the streets during rush hour ( remember i am talking about 3 YO's. then when the child is about 10 or so they start stealing food, candy etc just so they can eat. thena at about age 15 they start doing drugs, most of the time they got started on the drugs by their parents. by age 18 they are stealing robbing etc for money for drugs, and if they are lucky enought to be female they get preg so they can get a .gov check to start the whole circle over again.

after this tour i wonder if you would say all of the above was abuse and neglect
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:20:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
okay so now we say, you dont have the money to give a child a proper home, food and clothing so they get turned over to the child protective services for adoption by a family that can give all of the above



Absent situations of clear-cut abuse or a demonstrated unwillingness on the part of the parent to provide care for the child...because of neglect, and not money simply being tight...., I am not in favor of children being seperated from their birth parents.

Your solution is barbaric.



i don't think it's "barbaric" but I do think it is un-doable.

Agencies have a really tough time as it is, finding suitable foster homes for kids. The unfostered kids live in detention halls, not the same detention halls as Juve hall, but they don't get socialized properly and it acts as a punishment all the same that will be with them their entire lives.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:20:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
Tc where in new york do you live ?

i would be willing to give you a bus ticket to baltimore, then i will take you in the hood and show you some houses. these houses often have no electric, no heat, rats running thru the house, trash piled to the ceiling. as well as parents doing drugs with there babies on the couch next to them, having sex for money with the baby playing on the floor. then as the child gets to the age when they can walk and play they walk out of the house at all hours of the day, cross the streets during rush hour ( remember i am talking about 3 YO's. then when the child is about 10 or so they start stealing food, candy etc just so they can eat. thena at about age 15 they start doing drugs, most of the time they got started on the drugs by their parents. by age 18 they are stealing robbing etc for money for drugs, and if they are lucky enought to be female they get preg so they can get a .gov check to start the whole circle over again.

after this tour i wonder if you would say all of the above was abuse and neglect



And in those cases CPS needs to get involved and remove the kids. You don't remove kids simply because the parents are poor.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:22:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Hey here's a novel idea.

No Federal welfare of ANY kind!

NO WIC
NO Federal School Lunch Program
NO Federal School Breakfast Program
NO Federal Headstart Program
NO Food Stamps
NO Child & Adult Care Food Program
NO Aid to families with dependant children
NO Public Housing
NO Section 8 Housing
NO Housing Subsidies
NO Heating/utilities subsidies
NO Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
NO Agriculture Subsidies
NO Corporate Subsidies
NO Medicare
NO Medicaid
NO Earned Income Tax Credit

NO MORE FEDERAL CHARITY!!!



You obviously have forgotten how and why these programs came into existence.

Because people who don't feel like working and their apologists (you in this instance) voted for it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:26:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

You really shouldn't open a statement with name-calling, it demeans whatever you have to say after that. Just an observation.

I agree that getting people back into the workforce IS a problem and a hard one to rectify at that. I'm just throwing an idea out there to see how people react to it. I, personally don't think that it is barbaric, but I don't disrespect people who hold that opinion. I'm not a pro-lifer, so I would say that having an abortion is a choice the woman has to make.

My brother is a lawyer, his wife is a lawyer as well. They make a decent living, have a beautiful house on a safe street in a good neighborhood. They have two little boys and right after the second one was born, they decided that my brother would get sterilized. There thinking was that any more kids and they don't thinkthey could give them all the things that they wanted to give them.

This is responsible thinking.

I'm just explaining that that is where I'm coming from.

Also, the world is way too overpopulated.



Its descriptive, not name-calling. These are the types of people who say "my answer will solve the whole problem!" when in fact they don't solve the problem. If you can think of a better term, feel free to share it.

We did the same thing for the same reasons that your brother did. The point is, it was/ is a voluntary decision arrived at between the partners in the relationship and not dictated by outsiders. Society should not be imposing those decisions on people. They used to do the same thing to peopel in mental institutions because they didn't want mentally challenged people reproducing. I would hope thatw e've moved beyond that way of thinking.

As for the population thing, China uses the same justification for forcing pregnant women to get an abortion after the first live birth. Be careful what you wish for.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:29:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LS:
sterilization is a very good option, but deportation of illegals is even better we must use force and american pride to git this done a very very large majority is for this these illegials are killin the working man. and killing our country and morals. all you have to do is look arond you, the beanieros are breeding like rats 6 or 7 little babbinos pop out of every little shack and we pay for it
after all the unintelligent babymaking factories are deported then we can go after the real crime the no workin lazy drug dealin niggers, I have a dream and america can be beautifull again,



I agreed with a lot of what you said until you proved your ignorance and racism by using the "n" word.

Please refrain from that.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:32:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

And in those cases CPS needs to get involved and remove the kids. You don't remove kids simply because the parents are poor.



in some parts of baltimore this is not some cases its the majority, my wife went to a school that was not the best and 50 % of the people she went to HS with are now on welfare with many children. the system allows this to happen, it needs to be changed.

if some one does not get the free life from the .gov they would have to get a job. even mcD's around here pay 7 to 8 bucks an hour. then there are the jobs with the city, they are always hiring people to go clean the city parks and streets for IIRC about 11 per hour. no they are not glamous jobs but 11 per hour is a living wage, heck years ago i had a car, my own apartment etc on 8 per hour. i did not have any frills, but i ate and was warm.

then there are programs to help that people can get like going in the military, pell grants etc. i know they are not all perfect but they can work, the people just need to be willing to work for it.

i could give you a great true story of a guy i meet, he lived in the hood, was black ( not that it matters ) and i would trust him with my money and life before i would even let you see my wallet
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:35:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Schwoogie:
Because people who don't feel like working and their apologists (you in this instance) voted for it.


Uh, No. Because of the conditions that existed at the time that they were trying to correct. Does it mean that things are perfect now? No. But you really need to read up sometime on the conditions that existed at the time. It was quite often absolutely horrific conditions.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:39:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So your solution is to teach the parents that it is ok to be irresponsible for their own lives and the lives of their offspring, and as a BONUS, we'll GIVE YOU MONEY, as a reward!

What is you solution? Because it sounds like your saying, give them more money...



Unlike the armchair warriors who think they can solve the worlds problems by throwing out solutions like forced sterilizations, there is no easy answer. As for giving them more money, yes, they have more mouths to feed... that means they will need more money.
As for the kids, the bottom line is that that kid is going to need to be adequately cared for. If the parent is unable to do so because their benefits were cut as punishment for getting pregnant, whats that do to that kid? You can call it being irresponsible if you want, but we aren't robots. We live our lives, and sometimes stuff like getting pregnant happens. You don't punish the kids for that. Of course, here we run into the typical pro-life quandry: they don't want the woman to get an abortion, but hey, if she has the kid, lets punish her by cutting her benefits! Real brilliant, people. You'll really be convincing a lot of women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term with THAT as policy!

Ideally you would never have these folks on public aid, but that will never be the case. The solution is to get the parent back in the workforce and off public aid. How to do that is the problem.



Hate to burst your bubble, but that is referred to as "NAME CALLING". The stuff after the red is descriptive.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:40:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
if some one does not get the free life from the .gov they would have to get a job. even mcD's around here pay 7 to 8 bucks an hour. then there are the jobs with the city, they are always hiring people to go clean the city parks and streets for IIRC about 11 per hour. no they are not glamous jobs but 11 per hour is a living wage, heck years ago i had a car, my own apartment etc on 8 per hour. i did not have any frills, but i ate and was warm.

then there are programs to help that people can get like going in the military, pell grants etc. i know they are not all perfect but they can work, the people just need to be willing to work for it.

i could give you a great true story of a guy i meet, he lived in the hood, was black ( not that it matters ) and i would trust him with my money and life before i would even let you see my wallet


I don't know anyone who can live on $8/ hour. Around here, the bare minimum calculated living wage is well above that.

As for if they didn't get a handout they would work thing, thats not completely true. Prior to the current systems being put in place, there were many many people who didn't work. Did they do much of anything? Nope. The point being though that losing benefits will not automatically cause folks to magically decide to find work.

Your wallet is not at risk with me.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:41:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is referred to as "NAME CALLING". The stuff after the red is descriptive.



Ok, armchair experts. Hows that?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:49:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
if some one does not get the free life from the .gov they would have to get a job. even mcD's around here pay 7 to 8 bucks an hour. then there are the jobs with the city, they are always hiring people to go clean the city parks and streets for IIRC about 11 per hour. no they are not glamous jobs but 11 per hour is a living wage, heck years ago i had a car, my own apartment etc on 8 per hour. i did not have any frills, but i ate and was warm.

then there are programs to help that people can get like going in the military, pell grants etc. i know they are not all perfect but they can work, the people just need to be willing to work for it.

i could give you a great true story of a guy i meet, he lived in the hood, was black ( not that it matters ) and i would trust him with my money and life before i would even let you see my wallet


I don't know anyone who can live on $8/ hour. Around here, the bare minimum calculated living wage is well above that.

As for if they didn't get a handout they would work thing, thats not completely true. Prior to the current systems being put in place, there were many many people who didn't work. Did they do much of anything? Nope. The point being though that losing benefits will not automatically cause folks to magically decide to find work.

Your wallet is not at risk with me.



I would have to disagree with you there. I know someone who lives in NYC (one of the most expensive cities in the world) making about that wage. Does he live by himself? nope, he has roommates. Do they have cable tv? nope. Cell phones? nope. Computers outside of work? Nope. Their own cars? nope, don't need them in the city.

You can live on very little. You just won't have some of the luxuries that Americans think they can't live without
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:51:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is referred to as "NAME CALLING". The stuff after the red is descriptive.



Ok, armchair experts. Hows that?



Still name-callin, darlin
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is referred to as "NAME CALLING". The stuff after the red is descriptive.



Ok, armchair experts. Hows that?



Still name-callin, darlin



Self-appointed experts.

At some point it becomes descriptive without being name calling. I don't know where that point is for you.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:59:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is referred to as "NAME CALLING". The stuff after the red is descriptive.



Ok, armchair experts. Hows that?



Still name-callin, darlin



Self-appointed experts.

At some point it becomes descriptive without being name calling. I don't know where that point is for you.



All I'm asking is that you attack the idea instead of attacking the people making the idea by making assumptions about who that person is. It just demeans your own arguement. IMHO
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:15:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Hey here's a novel idea.

No Federal welfare of ANY kind!

NO WIC
NO Federal School Lunch Program
NO Federal School Breakfast Program
NO Federal Headstart Program
NO Food Stamps
NO Child & Adult Care Food Program
NO Aid to families with dependant children
NO Public Housing
NO Section 8 Housing
NO Housing Subsidies
NO Heating/utilities subsidies
NO Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
NO Agriculture Subsidies
NO Corporate Subsidies
NO Medicare
NO Medicaid
NO Earned Income Tax Credit

NO MORE FEDERAL CHARITY!!!



You obviously have forgotten how and why these programs came into existence.

Eleanore Roosevelt wiggled her nose and waved her wand?

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:31:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LS:
sterilization is a very good option, but deportation of illegals is even better we must use force and american pride to git this done a very very large majority is for this these illegials are killin the working man. and killing our country and morals. all you have to do is look arond you, the beanieros are breeding like rats 6 or 7 little babbinos pop out of every little shack and we pay for it
after all the unintelligent babymaking factories are deported then we can go after the real crime the no workin lazy drug dealin niggers, I have a dream and america can be beautifull again,





I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and predict your stupid ass wont make it to post # 10


I could be wrong tho.....


Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:32:18 PM EDT
How about a start of ,if you have cable, a computer, a cell phone , a car in a city with public transportation, the internet , or a TV. NO WELFARE!!!, subject to random inspections.

And food should be delivered from you freindly neighbor hood Gooberment food warehouse, if no public transportation avail, 20 lb bags of rice and pasta , tomato sauce , that sort of stuff. And who can forget the Gooberment CHEESE!!!


Norplant on the take, and NO sec 8, Housing projects, also subject to random searches. Want to sell your life to the goobermunt , OK fine .
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:33:18 PM EDT
We already have a fair welfare system, it's called charity.

People donate to causes they wish to support, and they know how their money is spent. If they don't like how it's handled they can choose another charity or simply not donate anything at all, as is their right.

No welfare system which is forced at governmental gunpoint will ever be fair. No matter what.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:51:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sprayandpray:
How about a start of ,if you have cable, a computer, a cell phone , a car in a city with public transportation, the internet , or a TV. NO WELFARE!!!, subject to random inspections.

And food should be delivered from you freindly neighbor hood Gooberment food warehouse, if no public transportation avail, 20 lb bags of rice and pasta , tomato sauce , that sort of stuff. And who can forget the Gooberment CHEESE!!!


Norplant on the take, and NO sec 8, Housing projects, also subject to random searches. Want to sell your life to the goobermunt , OK fine .



I like that idea. Instead of Sec 8 housing, we could put them in shelters. The people not looking for work or working during the day can take care of the children in the shelter and earn their board that way.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:55:23 PM EDT
I think taxpayers should be the only ones that vote....and I don't know how that will work with sales tax, but it is a start...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top