Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Government: "Single parents on welfare benefit need to STFU and GBTW"   (news.bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

18138 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2007 at 7:49 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



338 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-03-05 10:35:08 AM  
Xenolear [TotalFark]

I give it a 6.5, it was kinda a weak troll but I gave extra points for trying to change the thread into a abortion flamewar

/done feeding
 
2007-03-05 10:35:32 AM  
Tjos Weel There have been many studies that suggest that cities never get back in benefits the amount they give up in the deals.

I must admit it is hard to put an exact number on the benefits of these types of deals. Example how much is the empty lot really worth? How much are the tax breaks really worth? Very few times will a city council just pay a fix amount for a company to relocate. I know that here in Broken Arrow we gave alot of breaks to get a Bass Pro to locate to our area. And it was worth every dime! Just in new construction around the area alone. Then factor in the increase in property value and we made really sweat deal for both Broken Arrow and Bass Pro.
 
2007-03-05 10:36:14 AM  
m0ondoggy: McDonalds, $4.15 an hour. My first paycheck was $125. I was working limited hours while going to school. It was glorious.

Mine was around $70. And, yes, it was completely awesome.
 
2007-03-05 10:36:23 AM  
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer:

They're so non-productive that getting them to work with other people and managing them costs more than paying them to stay home.

I think that stems more from downright laziness and lack of caring than it does stupidity. People can get it right, they just don't give enough of a shiat to bother. They drag their asses through a workday while making little attempt to better themselves. It's not as though making money requires much intelligence, people just have no pride in their work anymore.
 
2007-03-05 10:40:09 AM  
2007-03-05 10:25:12 AM Sloth_DC

You quoting me quoting you? Careful you may pull something. And way do I have an ABBA playing in my head now?
 
2007-03-05 10:40:12 AM  
SchlingFo: Headso: but there is actual work that needs to be done that can benefit everyone, like our aging sewer and electrical systems...

Yes, and that it what I was referring to in the sense of public works projects.

If we're going to be paying them, we might as well be paying them to do something that's productive.


I can understand the appeal of it, but creating a huge government work force isn't the way I'd go about it. The WPA built a bunch of nice art-deco stuff here in Dallas in the 30s, but I'm not sure how productive all of it was. I like more of a private approach myself, but on the whole I like some of it. I would rather just give people a minimum amount of money, though. I think you need to give people an incentive to increase their skills, and giving welfare for things like extra children is silly and counterproductive. The welfare trap is real, and we need policies to minimize it.
 
2007-03-05 10:40:30 AM  
Espertron:

Just imagine what we could do with our society in terms of education, job training, child care and health care if we cut all the useless spending, get out of other countries (who don't even want us there to begin with) and, especially, get the fark out of Iraq.

Military spending has little to do with it. IMO, the "one size fits all" educational model we have is in general, ineffective. Some people just aren't cut out for education in the traditional sense. They'd be better off learning hands on skills (plumbing, electrical..) than they would learning about history, art, music, etc. It's lost on many people and a waste of money/effort on the government's part. Of course the US becoming a service based economy really requires more of people mentally.
 
2007-03-05 10:41:05 AM  
m0ondoggy

If you actually go back, and READ what I wrote, you'll find that I take no issue with someone getting help to get back on their feet. Welfare is largely used as a primary source of income for people too lazy to get off their ass and work.

I did read what you wrote and it struck me as rather Scrooge-like.

I made the comment that daycare should be free to every citizen of this country because it would take care of a real problem and you came back with suggesting that I'll also be wanting everyone to have a free car.

THAT's what I have a problem with. Inevitibly these handout programs do not get monitored, and the government gets raped to the tune of billions.

People do take advantage of the system. That will be the case with everything. However, just because there are some crap people out there doesn't mean that the entire thing should be dismantled. Demand better monitoring, not total dismantlement.

It's not easy, it's not supposed to be, that's why it's called work. In some situations it's completely farking hard. That doesn't mean you get the government to help you with every little aspect of your life. Once you do that, they get to TELL you how to run that aspect of your life.

I was addressing a real problem that prevents people from working. ONE PROBLEM. I'm not advocating that the government help with every little aspect of someone's life.

I feel that quality child care should be made available to every person who is a US citizen so they can spend their days WORKING, CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY AND PAYING TAXES and not worrying about how/what to do with their children. Oftentimes the lack of childcare is the only thing preventing these people from working.

Do you read MY posts?!
 
2007-03-05 10:41:32 AM  
Wow, what a lot of compassionate and thoughtful responses from people who have the money to blow on expressing their snarkiness online. This is the beautiful, brilliant attitude that we've cultivated since at least the Reagan era: everybody STFU and GBTW, oh, and by the way, because it saves us money and improves the value of our stocks, those there is no W for you to GBT. We sent that to Mexico and India, so we wouldn't have to pay anyone a decent wage or the costs of our own employment laws.

The craziest thing, of course, is that 90% of the people here who demonstrate that article are posting off of a work computer. We've got people slacking off of work who are calling people lazy, and smarmily attacking them for lack of work ethic.

Of course, we've also got people who happily use government handouts and programs blasting other people who use government handouts and programs. I guess using government money is OK when you're middle-class or wealthy, but when you're poor it's bad.

If you want to take your analogy further, it's really a death of hypocrisy as a tool of shame. "It's OK when I slack, but not when you slack." "It's OK when I take advantage of what the government gives me, but not OK for you to do the same." Compare with, say, Newt Gingrich: "It's OK for me to cheat on my dying-of-cancer second wife with my soon-to-be third wife, but the rest of you must demonstrate 'family values.'" Or, "It's OK for me to take inflated government contracts for defense, but it is not OK to give you piddling amounts of money to feed your kids."

We're all so used to our "betters" holding others to standards they don't expect to hold themselves that now we're doing it.
 
2007-03-05 10:41:38 AM  
2007-03-05 10:15:29 AM m0ondoggy


If you actually go back, and READ what I wrote, you'll find that I take no issue with someone getting help to get back on their feet. Welfare is largely used as a primary source of income for people too lazy to get off their ass and work.

OK, it seems like the key word in all of these arguments is LAZY. So, why don't all of you with the problem define it for us as it relates to getting assistance. Are you 'LAZY' after 2 months of welfare, a year, what are the stipulations? Is it EVER acceptable for the government to assist less fortunate citizens?
THAT's what I have a problem with. Inevitibly these handout programs do not get monitored, and the government gets raped to the tune of billions.

Have you written your Congressperson about the money flowing to Iraq? Your primary problem seems to be that the treasury is being 'raped' so why are you going after the weakest of the 'abusers'? It's like a big guy spit in your face and you do nothing but a little old lady gave you the finger, you kicked the shiat out of her.
It's not easy, it's not supposed to be, that's why it's called work. In some situations it's completely farking hard. That doesn't mean you get the government to help you with every little aspect of your life. Once you do that, they get to TELL you how to run that aspect of your life.
The government already tells us how to live our lives (smoking bans, trans-fat bans, drug laws, the FCC, etc.) so I guess using your logic it's ok for these people to get paid.
 
2007-03-05 10:45:14 AM  
Sloth_DC

You may be right. We've recently acquired an amazingly untalented female VP. Hooray progress!
 
2007-03-05 10:45:39 AM  
Xenolear: Abortion? No, Your just looking for an easy way out. You farked, now your farked. Dont murder.

Oh, I didn't say murder, I said abortion. Abortion is when they take a clump of cells out of a woman, and it dies on its own, because it's not yet a developed animal. Murder is when you kill a person.
 
2007-03-05 10:45:52 AM  
Espertron:

Nobody is FORCING women (or men) to do anything. But if a woman (or man) CHOOSES to receive taxpayer money, then it should be a condition they would accept. Nothing is free.


It _isn't_ free. If nothing else, there's the utter humiliation inflicted on people who have to use it by people like you who assume they're just after a free ride. But, in more practical terms, it's paid for by taxes. Sure, the people on welfare aren't paying taxes while they've a poverty level income (except, actually, they are, anytime they purchase anything at all) but few people actually stay on welfare _forever_.

Case in point -- Back when I was pregnant with my second child, I got sick. Seriously sick. Like, losing 79 pounds while _pregnant_, sick. So I also lost my job. It wasn't much of a job (we were living in New Orleans, at the time, and the economy was utter shiat... unless you were a lawyer or had 'old money' you were pretty much screwed) but it helped pay the bills. So yeah, we got some help. When I ended up in the hospital for four months after the baby was born, and my husband had to pack up, move, and find a new job when transferring to a different hospital was the only chance I had of surviving, I applied for both WIC/foodstamps and some other little program which provided about $185 cash, because my parents were taking care of my kids and couldn't _afford_ the extra expenses... not when they'd spent their savings to come stay with me and try to keep me alive the three months I was in the hospital in New Orleans... and we couldn't cover them yet. All in all, I probably drew about $5000 total from welfare.

We paid $32,000 in income taxes this year, $25,000 the year before, and will probably pay more than that next year. So there's my 'debt' plus enough for nine or ten other people. And you know what? I don't resent paying more in taxes than twice our entire previous income, and I sure as hell don't resent that money being used to help people who need it. That's what it's farking for. If you want to be a part of a civilized society, and reap the benefits there-of, then you have a debt to that society. In other words, if you want a nice place to live, you have to pay for it. That doesn't just mean good roads and plenty of soldiers. That means taking care of those members of society who can't care for themselves. That means using funds for the public good -- upholding the social contract made when the gov't collects those taxes. Everytime we pay an extra ten cents on the dollar we do it with the understanding that it's to benefit our society. Everytime we send in that huge-ass income tax check and the gov't accepts it, it's with the understanding that what we are 'paying' for is the privilege of living in a civilized nation, and that we are paying _now_ for any benefits we may need later. Some of those benefits are obvious, others are more ephemeral.

There are, for example, definite benefits in living in a society where the sick and elderly are taken care of. Even beyond the obvious facts that anybody can be struck by sudden illness and _everybody_ will one day be old, there's more. Sick people who are cared for promptly and adequately aren't out spreading disease. Elderly people treated with the same compassion you'll one day want to receive aren't dying on the streets and rotting in the alleyways... besides, most of them _paid_ their 'debt' with decades of taxes... so I think we can shell out for a few years of basic hospice care for those who got screwed over by pension plans, social security, ungrateful descendents, or just sheer nasty bad luck.

There are huge benefits to providing free public education, and the better the education, the greater the benefits. Want to live in a society without panhandlers and drug dealers? Then help those kids grow up to be something _else_. But gee, how can you do that if they're so freaking hungry they can't focus enough to learn? Well, I guess we should feed them, huh? Foodstamps for 18 years are cheap compared to drive-by shootings, a long criminal record, and years of incarceration. Of course, many people would say that 'those' kids aren't their problem. After all, they feed their own kids! Great, that's wonderful for them, but being a part of society means that, in a way, 'those' kids are everybody's kids... they belong to us all, even people who hate kids and never plan on having any, because we all _choose_ to live in this society and benefit from doing so, and I've never heard anyone say they wanted to live where there are bodies in the street and they step over starving, crying children on their way to work every morning. Nor have I ever seen any of these people who biatch about not wanting to "pay for their free ride" opt out of doing so. You could always pack up, head out to an island or down to South America, or even just hide out in the mountains, farm, build a windmill or waterwheel or whatever, and cut yourself off from the society you loathe supporting so much, but most people prefer to live where there are good roads, available food & shelter, medical care, the protection of the law, and education for their children available. Most people prefer to live in a society where new technologies become available every year, where new treatments for deadly diseases keep being discovered, where they can call 911 and have a reasonable expectation of receiving help(whether they're making $1000 or $100,000 a year), where they have the chance to learn and practice a trade they actually enjoy, and where the entire burden of healthcare and education for their children is shared by their society, rather than being something that is done by them or by nobody. And they pay into the system all the time, because they value the lifestyle it produces.

The people who are getting this "free" help may or may not have paid for it themselves... but if they haven't, then their parents, or their parents' parents have, or, if we're doing it _right_, their children or their children's children _will_. If society abandons those children, though, it is society as a whole who will pay for that mistake when they're grown, and all the self-righteous chest-thumping in the world won't change that.

Do you _really_ want to live in a world where people are forced to accept potentially dangerous medical procedures in order to benefit from being a part of our society? Can you be so sure that it won't ever be you or someone you care about? Even if you can... can you come up with a reason why anyone should care about things being forced on _you_ if you don't give a damn about things being forced on them? And don't repeat that cop-out about them 'choosing' to receive funds... yeah, for some people it's a choice, for others it's the only way to keep their families alive, and we all know damned well that that's not really a choice at all! The very basis of society is about pooling resources for the good of _all_. Not just the good of those who happen to be doing well financially right now. It's about investment in people; invest some in helping those families and educating those children _now_, and later on those kids pay in ten times that much. But that investment doesn't work unless it's properly spent, and part of that is that you have to spend _enough_ to be effective, and spend it on the right things. Providing birthcontrol free of charge would be a huge positive step. Forcing birthcontrol would result in resentment, degradation, needless death and suffering, and would make these people feel forever that they are not a part of society and therefore they would feel no need to _ever_ pay into it. It also would give the gov't control over our bodies, and once you start down that path... there's a hell of a lot of evil waiting at the end. Forced euthanasia, gov't dictated diet enforced by implanted monitoring chips, eugenics programs to cull undesirable traits... that's a door most of us would prefer stay firmly closed, latched, bolted, and barred, thanks. So _educate_ these kids, instead. Throw out the farking morality police and teach _real_ birth control in the classrooms. Pay the teachers well enough that people are willing to actually teach real _anything_ in the classrooms, too. Don't treat the kids like they're forever worthless just because they're poor _now_, and maybe they'll grow up to not be poor. Don't humiliate people when they need help, and maybe they'll feel like paying that help back someday. Oh, and offering childcare that doesn't cost more than a single woman can make in a year would be good, too. And I don't mean just single women with half a dozen kids, either... childcare here in Dallas for two kids, preschool age, runs $12,488 a year (that's for a normal daycare, priced on the low end, not anything special). Or it did five years ago when I was paying it. I made, at that job, $15,500 a year. Had I been single, I would have been completely screwed. Had he not been working long enough at a high enough salary to draw the max. unemployment insurance after being laid off during the tech crash, we would have been screwed. But with that and his little $330/mo check, we made it the year it took him to finally land a permanent job... at which point, my income bumped us up a tax bracket, and suddenly it literally cost us more for me to work than I was bringing in. You want single mothers to work and pay their own way? Most of them would farking _love_ to, but can't possibly afford to work _and_ pay childcare _and_ still buy food, pay for electricity, that sort of thing. So if hubby dies, or becomes disabled, or runs off with the bimbo at the office, oh farking well -- you're screwed.

BTW: Depo-Provera is used safely by thousands (tens of thousands, actually) of women every year. I know several women who use it and love it (no more daily pill, weekly patch or monthly vaginal estrogen ring). The incidence of truly adverse effects that necessitate discontinuation of the medication is quite low.

Yeah, I'm sure it is. Of course, if you _do_ have a bad reaction to it (say, purely for example, the severe suicidal depression that's fast becoming its trademark) it might take up to a year and a half for Depo to actually be out of your system. Sure, it's only guaranteed to work as birth control for three months... but it generally lasts much longer than that. 15 months for me, and if I hadn't had a friend who was a nurse and who badgered and bullied me into seeing a psych, I would have died without ever knowing what caused it. As it was, the first thing the doctor said was, "I see you just had a baby a few months ago; you wouldn't happen to have had a depo shot after that, would you?" Turned out he'd had a recent flood of patients with the same 'inexplicable' depression after a bc shot (this was right after it came out) and was beginning to get annoyed at the local hospitals for not warning women of the possibility. Norplant has similar issues, but at least it can be removed... of course, there's a risk of infection and nasty scarring from that. And of course, all hormonal birth control comes with increased risk of some cancers, as well as blood clots and weight gain (and the associated health issues that come with _that_), and potential mood disorders. Some of us have no problem with some of them, others have severe issues, but damned near no one has a problem with condoms (latex allergies can use nitryl/lambskin/other alternatives, and for those allergic to the lubes/spermacides, unlubed ones are available), and diaphrams work fairly well, and there are sponges and creams and other such things, as well as IUD's and tubal ligations. If these were available for free (along with depo and norplant) and people were educated on their uses and benefits, and the damned religious nutcases would stay away from the clinics so that people can _get_ them, there'd be a hell of a lot fewer 'welfare babies' out there, and a hell of a lot of _grateful_ rather than resentful women. And a lot less abortions, too, but you'll never get the nutcases to realize that, unfortunately. But the key isn't in taking control of someone else's body... the key is in educating people to make good decisions, and then providing them with the opportunity to do so!

Anyway, that's my little rant on society's woes and people who don't seem to realize that living in a civilized country is about more than paying for nice weapons and well-fed politicians. If we don't take care of our own, then we are _not_ civilized, and if we _do_ take care of them, properly, they will eventually justify our investment. That's what civilization is all about.

/rant mode off
//we now return you to your regularly scheduled snark-fest, already in progress
 
2007-03-05 10:46:41 AM  
MadAsshatter: Military spending has little to do with it. IMO, the "one size fits all" educational model we have is in general, ineffective. Some people just aren't cut out for education in the traditional sense. They'd be better off learning hands on skills (plumbing, electrical..) than they would learning about history, art, music, etc. It's lost on many people and a waste of money/effort on the government's part. Of course the US becoming a service based economy really requires more of people mentally.

I so, so agree with this. High schools do a good job making you feel stupid if you do anything else but the university route. There is no shame in vocations, and you can make a lot of money with it. At the same time your liberal arts buddy is taking your order at Starbucks. Not everyone can or even wants to do the traditional education route.
 
2007-03-05 10:50:10 AM  
Velvet_Wood, could you provide me with:
i45.photobucket.com
 
2007-03-05 10:50:11 AM  
2007-03-05 10:29:48 AM Sloth_DC


RosettaStone: And, anecdotally, I have to admit that when I meet a highly-paid incompetent person, it is almost always a white male.

That's a factor of the local old-boys-network. You'll see a lot of highly-paid incompetent blacks around here (PG County, MD, yo), but that's just because there are more blacks tied into the local power structure, here. Nationally, yes, the local power structure is going to be mostly white males, but that's been changing for a long time, and local conditions may vary.

================================================

LOL. What's the percentage of White male CEOs again? Well, the country DID hire the second black governor in 200+ years, so I guess you're right.
 
2007-03-05 10:51:59 AM  
Rational Exuberance:I can understand the appeal of it, but creating a huge government work force isn't the way I'd go about it. The WPA built a bunch of nice art-deco stuff here in Dallas in the 30s, but I'm not sure how productive all of it was. I like more of a private approach myself, but on the whole I like some of it.

I am a free market kind of guy myself. However this is one of the very few times the gov can do it better then the private sector. The main advantage is that the gov knows were these people are! They can put a little flyer in the welfare check saying that if they want another one to show up at the work site. I dont think I want the gov listing the names and addresses of private citizens so that the corps can send out letters. And I dont want the corps to be responsible for tell the gov when Timmy was there. Plus if you were a business owner would you want to hire a bunch of people who are forced to work for you? I know I would not let them in the building. I can see it now, suddenly my work place accidents skyrocket and my worker's comp payments increase to match
 
2007-03-05 10:52:12 AM  
Ah but I earn those services by paying for them with the taxes taken out of my paycheck when I work.

Ok, so maybe, maybe you even out - But I've been pretty much continously employed since high school and have never received unemployment/welfare/etc...

There's a substantial subset of the population that has NEVER worked 'above the table' and uses having kids as a way to increase their benefits.

The nice thing about norplant or Depo, or even a properly performed vasectomy is that it's reversable once you get off welfare. Then you can have kids again.

Diabound: I personally am disgusted that our Prime Minister is so dedicated to manifesting his own libertarian economic wet-dream in this country. We're spending hundreds of billions of pounds on crap like an offensive military, nuclear weapons, and various waste organisations (like the Department of Trade and Industry) that simply don't justify their cost, and rather than deal with redistributing funding from these to essential public services like the police, education ("Education, education, education" was Blair's mantra when he came in, and he's completely failed to deliver on that), and healthcare.

Wow. That looks like a conservative/republican wet dream here in the states. As a USA libertarian, all of that is NOT part of the libertarian creed here.

clouddancer:Yup. We get Foodstamps, WIC and we are on MaineCare. Yes, I am a stay at home mom to my 10-month-old son. You know what? It would cost MORE for me to work than it does for me to stay home.

I'm going to be nasty here: First step is don't have any more kids while you're in this situation. Second step is to have your BF grow a spine and either get a degree in something that CAN demand a higher wage or otherwise get a higher paying job. As for you, I agree, it's probably for the best for you to stay home for now. But what about when the kids are in school? You should be able to get a job for that. As for fixed hours - I make the arguement that employers that only pay minimum wage should be the ones to be the MOST flexible about it's workers. After all, it is hiring the bottom of the bucket. If that means it has to work you at fixed hours that work with the bus system, so be it - they aren't paying you enough to have a car.

If you think that's nasty, well, you should see what I propose when I truly get going. Hint: You probably wouldn't enjoy living in a military style dormatory, eating and working in a cafateria, as well as watching other's kids in shifts(and having yours watched as well).
 
2007-03-05 10:52:26 AM  
It's easy to get off welfare and attain the American dream...and race never plays a factor!


CLASS: For the most part, it takes at least three generations to rise from the bottom to the top. Fully one-third of women in the elite are from the upper class. Most of the Cuban Americans and Chinese Americans come from ruling-class families displaced by political upheaval. The Jews and Japanese Americans are the products of two- and three-generational climbs up the social ladder. And the first African Americans to serve in cabinets and on the boards of large corporations tended to come from the small black middle class that predated the civil rights movement.

EDUCATION: The women and minorities who make it into the corporate elite are typically better educated than the white males who are already a part of it, but time and again they emerge from the same institutions: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT on the East Coast; the University of Chicago in the Midwest; Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley on the West Coast.

SKIN COLOR: African Americans and Latinos who do make it into the power elite are lighter-skinned than other prominent members of their racial group. As Colin Powell told Henry Louis Gates Jr. in the New Yorker, explaining his popularity among whites: "Thing is, I ain't that black."

"IDENTITY MANAGEMENT": As Terie Miyamoto, an Asian American U.S. West executive, puts it, the challenge is to move into a "comfort zone" with those who decide who is and is not acceptable for inclusion. Cecily Cannan Selby, the first female board member of Avon Products, cites her first dinner with the previously all-male Avon board: The tension in the room, she says, was visibly reduced when she lit up a cigar. Hedging against traditional stereotypes, Jewish and black executives must be properly reserved, Asian American executives properly assertive, gay executives traditionally masculine, and lesbian executives traditionally feminine.
 
2007-03-05 10:53:21 AM  
I guess you 'elect' governors.
 
2007-03-05 10:54:51 AM  
Rational Exuberance [TotalFark]:

I so, so agree with this. High schools do a good job making you feel stupid if you do anything else but the university route. There is no shame in vocations, and you can make a lot of money with it. At the same time your liberal arts buddy is taking your order at Starbucks. Not everyone can or even wants to do the traditional education route.

There is little pride in doing an honest days work with your hands. Of course companies who hire idiots, train them for a couple days and send them out as electricians, plumbers, carpenters also cheapen the industry. My wife and I looked at some new houses being built this weekend, they were in the $600k-700k range. In Atlanta, this should get you a pretty damn nice house. Looking at it, it looked cheaply built and half ass. I can't remember the last time I looked at a new house that wasn't $2 million dollars that I was actually impressed with. That being said, whenever we look at older houses, they are built with pride and are much stronger looking, regardless of the price. You have to shell out a ton of money to actually get things done right, some good quality workers would do the industry good. Of course, you wouldnt be able to quiz them on the Magna Carta or who sacked Rome in the 5th century, but that's ok.
 
2007-03-05 10:54:54 AM  
jarbabyj: I think that in Europe though, women get months and months off with full pay...at least that's what I've heard.

In the UK it's unspoken practice not to hire women of birthing age. They get like a full year off at full pay plus tons of other benefits when they give birth. Yeah, it's great for the mother but it's tough to pay someone a decent salary when at any moment they can inform you that they're about to take a year off with full pay and benefits and you cannot even hire someone to replace them during that time. It's a very common practice to wait until the end of the year and then to quit and not come back at all.
 
2007-03-05 11:00:16 AM  
No Vicky Pollard yet?
img.dailymail.co.uk
 
2007-03-05 11:00:20 AM  
Velvet_Wood [TotalFark]

I think what Espertron was getting at was if you want to continue to receive benefits you need to give some up. Lets face it, their are women who have children every five years just to stay on welfare. I'm not talking about of my a@@ here, my sister is one of those people. She had her first kid at 15, the next at 19, and is currently looking for a new "baby daddy" right now cause the other is turning five in six months. Welfare is need to help those who really have fallen on hard time but it should not be a free ride as long as you keep making the babies.
 
2007-03-05 11:00:40 AM  
Did I read that correctly: their goal is to get 80% employment? How many frickin' people are out of work in the UK? And, who cares?
 
2007-03-05 11:09:02 AM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus: I am a free market kind of guy myself. However this is one of the very few times the gov can do it better then the private sector. The main advantage is that the gov knows were these people are! They can put a little flyer in the welfare check saying that if they want another one to show up at the work site. I dont think I want the gov listing the names and addresses of private citizens so that the corps can send out letters. And I dont want the corps to be responsible for tell the gov when Timmy was there. Plus if you were a business owner would you want to hire a bunch of people who are forced to work for you? I know I would not let them in the building. I can see it now, suddenly my work place accidents skyrocket and my worker's comp payments increase to match

The problem is, well, what if they don't show up? Do they just starve? Or do a crap job? If you are forced to work, and have a guaranteed position, why try very hard at it? This is true publicly or privately.

I think there are good methods for reducing poverty, but they should be on the money side, rather than the work side of it. I like the EITC, and if it was expanded and given out monthly I think we'd get people managing their funds better and working to get out of being poor. It's not an easy problem, though, so there is some room for experimentation.
 
2007-03-05 11:11:19 AM  
Submitter: Government: "Single parents on welfare benefit need to STFU and GBTW"

log_jammin: so....what happens if she got divorced
Then they are Divorced Parents, not Single Parents, and presumably are entitled to child support.

and her kids were 13 and 14? or the husband died
Then she's a Widow.

or ran off on her?
Techinically she's still married then.

Pet peeve of mine: Obfuscation by combining different things together, as if they were all the same thing.

/Confusing language leads to confused thinking.
 
2007-03-05 11:15:59 AM  
Espertron: Just imagine what we could do with our society in terms of education, job training, child care and health care if we cut all the useless spending, get out of other countries (who don't even want us there to begin with) and, especially, get the fark out of Iraq.

Agreed. If you totaled up all of the welfare spending since the beginning of its creation it doesn't add up to one day in iraq. Thanks for your time
 
2007-03-05 11:17:06 AM  
ChaoticLimbs: I always think it's funny when people consider military spending "waste" while social programs are what the government is "supposed to" do.

Same here, especially because providing for the nation's defense is mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate function (and in fact a duty) of our limited government, while social spending is not.
 
2007-03-05 11:17:25 AM  
Is it wrong to suggest whipping the poor until they aren't poor anymore?
 
2007-03-05 11:17:47 AM  
Here's my take on the whole welfare system.

1) Go on welfare and you are to get for your current family, have another child while collecting welfare, you give that child up for adoption.

2) If you collect welfare you need to continually look for work or go to school fulltime.

This whole welfare system needs to be looked at and revamped period!!

Also, I KNEW by looking at the topic on the front page, we were not talking about the U.S. How right I was...
 
2007-03-05 11:21:25 AM  
Roy_G_Biv: Same here, especially because providing for the nation's defense is mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate function (and in fact a duty) of our limited government, while social spending is not.

What if that military spending has nothing to do with the nation's defense?
 
2007-03-05 11:22:47 AM  
Freebyrdjason:

1) Go on welfare and you are to get for your current family, have another child while collecting welfare, you give that child up for adoption.

What a legal nightmare that would be. It would cost the govt 10x as much in legal fees as it would just to let them keep it. That being said, I agree.

Also, I KNEW by looking at the topic on the front page, we were not talking about the U.S. How right I was...

If it were an American politician this discussion would be littered with the "That's Racist!" kid. Of course that wouldn't happen because it's an "insensitive" thing to say and getting votes is much more important than being useful.
 
2007-03-05 11:23:34 AM  
This article proves George Bush hates (please choose from list below)

[ ] peace
[ ] economic stability
[ ] laws he cannot break
[X] children
[X] the poor
[ ] homosexuals
[ ] freedom
[ ] democracy
[ ] privacy
[ ] reading books
[ ] clean air
[ ] The Constitution
[ ] honesty
[X] single mothers
[ ] America
[ ] Canada
[ ] Islam
[ ] science
[ ] free speech
[ ] black people
[X] human rights
[ ] animal-human hybrids
[ ] logic
[ ] foreign leaders with names he cannot pronounce
 
2007-03-05 11:23:39 AM  
Roy_G_Biv: ChaoticLimbs: I always think it's funny when people consider military spending "waste" while social programs are what the government is "supposed to" do.

Same here, especially because providing for the nation's defense is mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate function (and in fact a duty) of our limited government, while social spending is not.


In strict economic terms, military spending is "wasteful". It does nothing productive with any of its resources. That doesn't mean its not necessary, but it is definitely wasteful. And don't anyone go mentioning the byproducts of military spending; that's just the broken window fallacy.

Spending on poverty alleviation can actually be a productive activity, if done right. You can be pretty wasteful with it, too, but at least it has the promise of it.
 
2007-03-05 11:23:48 AM  
Smarshmallow: What if that military spending has nothing to do with the nation's defense?

Then it needs to be cut.
 
2007-03-05 11:24:07 AM  
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Well in principle I agree - but there's like, oh, 5% of the population that we would all be better off if we just paid them to stay home.

Man, that's bad. My grandmother works with the mentally handicapped - Perpetual age 7-12, IQ 40-60 type stuff. They've managed to find jobs for over half of them. Now, they aren't minimum wage jobs, most are piecemeal, but they're proud of that $20/week. While not enough to cover their maintenance needs, it helps keep them busy and occupied, which they like.

Still, in this case I think that steralizing them so they don't produce more leeches is a good idea.

Velvet_Wood:It _isn't_ free. If nothing else, there's the utter humiliation inflicted on people who have to use it by people like you who assume they're just after a free ride

And some of these people view it as a entitlement, and are absolutely unembarrased by leeching as best as they can, and whining about not getting enough. I've met a few.

It looks like the system worked for you. You had a REASON(hospitalization) to need the extra assistance. That's the program working as intended. What we're moaning about is that you have, in some cases, three to four generations of people who've done nothing but leech their entire life. Sure, you might have taken $5k in one year, but they'll take $12k/year for decades.

Look - Taking care of the kids, no problem. Heck, we aren't even talking about letting adults starve in the street or suffer from a treatable disease because we can't be bothered. What we're talking about is placing restrictions and conditions in place to keep the problem from expanding(welfare moms who keep having kids). Teaching the kids to avoid the mistakes that landed their parents on welfare should be a main priority. conducting remedial training to make the welfare recipient capable of being a productive member of society should be as well. In your case, you should have received disability, not welfare. You were physically unable to work(being mostly confined to a hospital). Even disability needs some reform, as there are huge numbers of people claiming it for things like bad backs and knees, with some of them being caught doing things like running half-marathons.

Heck, the birth control thing I wouldn't even worry about until they've been on it for more than a year.
 
2007-03-05 11:24:19 AM  
^ oops, I should read article first, lol.
 
2007-03-05 11:25:50 AM  
Roy_G_Biv: Same here, especially because providing for the nation's defense is mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate function (and in fact a duty) of our limited government, while social spending is not.


Hey Now.

The Constitution mentions that a role of the government is "providing for the common defense." That said, it takes an exceptionally loose interpretation of the "Common Defense" to say that the Iraq war qualifies. It takes just as much of a loose interpretation as the Liberals use on the "General Welfare" clause to justify all of their asinine social issues.

The Federal government, as the framers intended and stated, would have a hand in neither. I can guarantee you that military adventurism and nation building was not intended in "Common Defense."

---

OK, with that out of the way, I have a legitimate question:

Why do people have children that they cannot afford?
 
2007-03-05 11:28:34 AM  
The Homer Tax: The Federal government, as the framers intended and stated, would have a hand in neither. I can guarantee you that military adventurism and nation building was not intended in "Common Defense."

Well, we did attack the Barbary Coast early on. Pirates were like the terrorists of the 18th century.

OK, with that out of the way, I have a legitimate question:

Why do people have children that they cannot afford?


Why do people buy things on credit that they can't afford? Because instant gratification + delayed costs = bad decisions? It always happens.
 
2007-03-05 11:29:02 AM  
The Homer Tax

Why do people have children that they cannot afford?

Because they think abortion is murder.
 
2007-03-05 11:32:36 AM  
The Homer Tax:

Why do people have children that they cannot afford?

Because the government makes sure that they can afford them.
 
2007-03-05 11:33:13 AM  
it's called labor activation policy, and it's hardly 'stfu and gbtw'.
 
2007-03-05 11:33:47 AM  
The Homer Tax: Why do people have children that they cannot afford?

Because they're either against abortion or selfish and would rather let the taxpayers pay for the kid than adopt the baby out to a couple who would willingly pay to raise the kid.
 
2007-03-05 11:34:03 AM  
falser [TotalFark]:

^ oops, I should read article first, lol.

I did the same when I read the headline. BTW, you forgot black people. Everyone knows any criticism of the poor automatically equals criticism of blacks.
 
2007-03-05 11:35:40 AM  
People who talk about using mandatory birth control and stealing poor people's babies need to take a step back from their keyboard and take a long look at the series of bad books they've read to build their particular philosophy.

The amount we spend on welfare is miniscule compared to roads, military, support for the aged, law enforcement, and education. I know this is a hot button topic for many people, however, some people need to ratchet down their level of hatred for the poor.

Having impovrished citizens is part of the equation for the economic system we use. Not everyone can be a success, otherwise the cheap goods and services we rely on will evaporate. It is inevitable, and part of the cost we have to pay is having some form of a social net so we don't have as many starving children whoseonly mistake was being born into poverty.
 
2007-03-05 11:36:18 AM  
When I was growing up I remember going two weeks without food.

I'd really like to know how welfare is some kind of luxury nowadays.

I still think I suffer mentally from the days when my mother was on welfare.

I think those who imply that welfare is some kind of vacation for the lazy should try it...
 
2007-03-05 11:37:06 AM  
Donald_McRonald

Teacher: "Vicky, you forgot your baby."
Vicky: "Keep it. I've got more at home"

/Classic
 
2007-03-05 11:37:37 AM  
Rational Exuberance: Why do people buy things on credit that they can't afford? Because instant gratification + delayed costs = bad decisions? It always happens.

If I buy a car that I can't afford, it gets reposessed. If I have a kid that I can't afford, someone cuts me a check.

I propose we start reposessing children.
 
2007-03-05 11:38:35 AM  
Still, in this case I think that steralizing (the mentally handicapped) so they don't produce more leeches is a good idea.

Mmmmm...I love the smell of eugenics in the morning, firethorn.

You know, maybe teaching history shouldn't be such a low priority after all. And (yes, I know this is a cheap shot) spelling.
 
Displayed 50 of 338 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report