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 338
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

18130 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2007 at 7:49 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



338 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-05 11:47:19 AM
Humanity clearly has an excellent capacity for self-destruction.

No, it isn't the people on welfare I'm talking about. It's the monsters in this thread calling for restrictions on the right to reproduce.
 
2007-03-05 11:49:21 AM
If you're on welfare, you shouldn't be having kids, stupid!!!

Time to warm up the Sterilaser™ gun.

/Now which drawer do I keep my shark in?
//Oh yes...here we are...in the drawer labeled "Household Killing Machines"
///Now just carefully open the drawer as to not wake theYYEEAAAAHHHIIIAIGGG IT'S AWAKE!!! OH GOD HELP ME!!!!! EEEEAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!! I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER I CAN KEEP TYPING!!!!111 YYEEEAAAAAAAAA!!!11 HE'S REALY PISSED OFF FROM BEING IN THAT DRAWER FOR SO LOOOOONRRRRRGH!!! THIS REALLY HURTS YYEAAAAAAEEEEE (GURGLE, GURGLE....
 
2007-03-05 11:54:37 AM
Bored Horde: It's the monsters in this thread calling for restrictions on the right to reproduce.

Who's asking for restrictions on the right to reproduce? People are calling on restrictions of how much of *my* money you are entitled to to support *your* reproduction. Want to reproduce without needing a subsidy from working people? Knock yourself out.
 
2007-03-05 11:54:58 AM
First of all, I believe I heard it from a comedian, but it makes sense... Institute the military draft... for deadbeat dads. And garnish their military pay for child support.

Second of all, welfare should be like getting funds for college. Either you qualify for a one-time grant, or you take out loans and repay them when you get back on your feet. Grant funds would be limited and you would have to qualify (i.e. your spouse dies or is disabled).

Other than that.... yeah, STFU & GBTW. It's not hatred for the poor at all. It's more like, "Hey, I work for my money. You should too!" We can't skew our society to accomodate a few. Those few should adapt to society. Sink or swim.

/single parent
//never on welfare
 
2007-03-05 11:57:34 AM
While raising my 17 year old son I reintroduced him to the antiquated concept of "Shotgun Wedding".

/Some traditions need to be brought back.
//Some people put more thought into owning a puppy than having kids.
 
2007-03-05 11:57:41 AM
Mr. Xhin

///Now just carefully open the drawer as to not wake theYYEEAAAAHHHIIIAIGGG IT'S AWAKE!!! OH GOD HELP ME!!!!! EEEEAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!! I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER I CAN KEEP TYPING!!!!111 YYEEEAAAAAAAAA!!!11 HE'S REALY PISSED OFF FROM BEING IN THAT DRAWER FOR SO LOOOOONRRRRRGH!!! THIS REALLY HURTS YYEAAAAAAEEEEE (GURGLE, GURGLE....

I hope you don't mind... but I LOL'd at your demise. A whole bunch.
 
2007-03-05 11:58:50 AM
The Homer Tax: 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 also mentions that the government has the power to declare war and raise armies. Although I did not bring up Iraq, those are the parts that would apply there.

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.
See above. Besides, promoting the "General Welfare" is not listed as a specific power, but as an general objective. The restrictions that follow it still apply, because "General Welfare" could be twisted to mean nearly anything. If that was intended, there would be no need to list specific powers. Also "General Welfare" means the welfare of the General Public, not specific persons.
 
2007-03-05 11:58:54 AM
Back in the early 90's, I used to help out my mom with her shoe store in LA. The shoe store used to be in Inglewood, which back then was not a good or bad area of LA. Anyway, it seemed that everyday young females would come to all of the stores in downtown Inglewood looking for a job. What they really wanted was a signature from the store owners that they came asking for a job. These were government papers issue to them as one of the steps in order to qualify for welfare. Basically, the signatures 'proved' that they came looking for work but could not find work. We used to sign them, but one day my mom said, the next time a girl comes up asking for a 'job', I'm actually going to offer her a job. Sure enough later that day, a female came with that paper and my mom said, "yes, we actually need help, here is an application." Just like we thought, she was not interested in the job, because she made every excuse to not take the job.

I hope that the US will follow this example from Blair. If healthy people are able to work, then they should work and they should stop leeching from the system. The US should help them get a skill, instead of just giving them money (teach them how to fish, instead of giving them a fish). Then, after gov gives them access to learn a skill, give them a 6 month period to find a job because that's when the welfare will stop. If people can't rely on free money anymore, they will work.
Back in the early 90's, I used to help out my mom with her shoe store in LA. The shoe store used to be in Inglewood, which back then was not a good or bad area of LA. Anyway, it seemed that everyday young females would come to all of the stores in downtown Inglewood looking for a job. What they really wanted was a signature from the store owners that they came asking for a job. These were government papers issue to them as one of the steps in order to qualify for welfare. Basically, the signatures 'proved' that they came looking for work but could not find work. We used to sign them, but one day my mom said, the next time a girl comes up asking for a 'job', I'm actually going to offer her a job. Sure enough later that day, a female came with that paper and my mom said, "yes, we actually need help, here is an application." Just like we thought, she was not interested in the job, because she made every excuse to not take the job.

I hope that the US will follow this example from Blair. If healthy people are able to work, then they should work and they should stop leeching from the system. The US should help them get a skill, instead of just giving them money (teach them how to fish, instead of giving them a fish). Then, after gov gives them access to learn a skill, give them a 6 month period to find a job because that's when the welfare will stop. If people can't rely on free money anymore, they will work.
 
2007-03-05 11:59:34 AM
Dafina:

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.


You missed my point. If I read you correctly, your sister has three kids, and will probably have a fourth soon. You think that she hasn't done anything to 'earn' her welfare benefits, and I can't argue with that... sounds like she hasn't. However, she is still a part of our society... and more importantly, her children are a part of our society, and if we, as a society, take proper care of those children, then one day they will pay into the system more than she receives from welfare. That's the 'investment' part. We're not paying so that your sister can get a free ride -- we're paying so your neices and nephews can grow up to be healthy, educated, productive members of society. At least that's the way it's supposed to work... if it doesn't work that way, at the moment, it's because we _aren't_ providing a decent education because of a combination of interferance by religious nutcases, gov't. waste, and underfunding of educational programs because no one seems to realize that education is the real key to change and that money spent on education _will_ come back to us later on.

I am not an altruistic person. To be truthful, I'm pretty selfish and cynical, and think that most people are idiots who could benefit from a swift kick... so when I say that helping these people is a good thing, you can pretty much bet it's because I see some real benefit to doing so. Otherwise, I'd be really pissed off at the really ridiculous amount of money the gov't gets from us right now. I mean, I could pay off my _house_ with the amount of taxes we paid this year alone! So it's not compassion or soft-heartedness or anything like that that makes me say that we should take care of these people and treat them with the same dignity we give anyone else. I don't say we should spend money feeding and educating poor kids just because I have a soft spot for kids or even because I've been there in the past myself. It's purely a matter of enlightened self-interest -- in order for our society to be the type of environment I want to live in and want my children to grow up in, these things need to be done, and so, since I benefit from it, it is my responsibility to pay for it. And, in a more concrete, practical, financial way, it is well worth the initial investment in these 'welfare babies' if they one day become productive, paying members of society rather than ending up in a life of crime or spreading disease due to not having the education and the support needed to take advantage of that education available when they needed it.

And while the system will certainly be abused, the answer is not to implement return civil abuses of the people using it. Sure, maybe your sister is abusing the system and getting away with it, and maybe she would deserve to be looked down upon and treated as less than a 'respectable' member of society... but you can't pick and choose who gets treated that way, not if it's a law. And you can't expect her children to grow up respecting a society who degraded their mother, or one who denied them what they needed just because their mother wasn't willing to work for it. If we, as a society, abandon those kids, then we, as a society, will pay the price later on. But if we accept them as a societal debt, and pay what it takes to care for and educate them, then one day we're also the ones who reap the benefit of doing so.
 
2007-03-05 12:03:05 PM
Sloth_DC: Want to reproduce without needing a subsidy from working people? Knock yourself out up.

fixed.
 
2007-03-05 12:04:06 PM
Rational Exuberance: 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.

If they have a choice between working and staving and they pick staving then to bad for them. It would be like any other job. If you run out of vacation time and time off does your company pay you if you don't show up? No, they don't. As I said before, I am more then happy to provide daycare and other support features. So if they don't show up then they are not hungry.
As far as them doing a bad job, digging a hole is not that hard, picking up trash is not that hard, and mowing a yard is not that tough.
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 12:04:22 PM
Rational Exuberance: 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.

It may be wasteful in your opinion or in the opinion of some economists, but it is a Constitutionally-authorized legitimate function of our Governement, while social spending is not.
 
2007-03-05 12:04:47 PM
Crap. So cleaver, so poorly implemented. How do I do strikethrough?
 
2007-03-05 12:07:19 PM
NathanAllen: 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.


I'm childfree, and love my vasectomy. I think every guy should get one, they're farking great. That said, it should be their choice to get one. I don't think mandatory sterilization is the answer, and I do think there should be a safety net for those who fall through the cracks.

When my wife broke her legs 6 years ago, she qualified for a one-time payment of $35, because she's white and had no kids.

I think a reasonable solution would include time limits for how long you can be on welfare, having to work to receive it, and limiting child benefits to the number of kids you have going in. If you have 2 kids when you go on welfare, that's the maximum child benefit you can get, unless you're pregnant when you start, in which case you'd get another allowance when that kid was born. They wouldn't have their rights violated by forcing sterilization on them, but they wouldn't be rewarded for pumping out more kids, either.
 
2007-03-05 12:07:21 PM
Di Atribe

Totally my fault. Apparently sharks prefer to be kept, not in a "drawer," but in an "ocean." Stupid me.

/Do you have any band-aids, or some iodine?
 
2007-03-05 12:09:00 PM
Smarshmallow,


<strike>text...</strike>
 
2007-03-05 12:11:10 PM
Roy_G_Biv: Rational Exuberance: 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.

It may be wasteful in your opinion or in the opinion of some economists, but it is a Constitutionally-authorized legitimate function of our Governement, while social spending is not.


You miss my point. I did say in strictly economic terms, it provides no economic benefit. It's not an opinion at all; it's pretty much factual. Destroying something is wasteful, and that's what the military does.

That's nothing to say about whether we should have it or not. The military provides benefit, just not economic ones.

I'd rather have a lot of changes in social spending too (I don't think the government needs to administer nearly as much as it does), but it doesn't change the basic economic fact.
 
2007-03-05 12:12:18 PM
The Third Man - Ouch, steralizing:sterilizing. I need to proof-read more.

And what, besides the atrocity that was the Nazi implimentation of it, is wrong with practicing a bit of eugenics?

Please note that, as far as I'm concerned, there can be some very practical advantages to sterilizing the retarded. They aren't mentally capable of dealing with a pregnancy, so it can be in their benefit to make sure it doesn't happen. Rapes DO occur, my grandmother had to be on an investigation of one that resulted in pregnancy. The issues got ugly, very very ugly.

On the other hand, our retarded population isn't producing many kids. The sterilization part was more intended for the generational welfare/criminal types. More as a measure of eliminating that culture than the genes.
 
2007-03-05 12:12:26 PM
Smarshmallow: Crap. So cleaver, so poorly implemented. How do I do strikethrough?

<strike>Strikethrough</strike>
 
2007-03-05 12:13:29 PM
2007-03-05 11:36:18 AM GregoryD


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...

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


Now, THERE'S a question. If welfare is 'easy' money that'll be sufficent to support your household why the fark do you idiots still work? Oh, because you're morally superior to the unemployed, right? You work because of the sense of satisfaction it gives. Your justification for not getting on welfare is that you want to contribute to society, right? Bullshiat.
 
2007-03-05 12:13:49 PM
Sure enough later that day, a female came with that paper and my mom said, "yes, we actually need help, here is an application." Just like we thought, she was not interested in the job, because she made every excuse to not take the job.

Good for your mom. I think the govermment does great harm when it tries to seperate people from the pain of stupid mistakes. Sometimes the best thing a parent can do is to let their child "fark up" and learn from their mistakes. To continually fund poor behavior only invites more of the same.

Let local charities (which are closer to the problem) help those who are truly in need. In many cases centralized government is too far away from the problem to do anything more "effective" than to throw other people's money at the problem.
 
2007-03-05 12:17:12 PM
Roy_G_Biv: Rational Exuberance: 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.

It may be wasteful in your opinion or in the opinion of some economists, but it is a Constitutionally-authorized legitimate function of our Governement, while social spending is not.


It might could be said that all defense spending is military spending, however, all military spending is not defense spending!

Our gov't is specifically authorized to spend money in defense of our country. It is not authorized to conduct huge, wasteful invasions of other countries or to dump billions of dollars defending territory that is not ours.
 
2007-03-05 12:18:10 PM
The Homer Tax

Why do people have children that they cannot afford?

Because they have been told sexual urges are something that you have no control over. They also want to be rewarded with financial aid for their bad choices. If they knew that there was not a nanny state to take from others to give to them, they would make better life choices.
 
2007-03-05 12:25:17 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND:Now, THERE'S a question. If welfare is 'easy' money that'll be sufficent to support your household why the fark do you idiots still work? Oh, because you're morally superior to the unemployed, right? You work because of the sense of satisfaction it gives. Your justification for not getting on welfare is that you want to contribute to society, right? Bullshiat.

Welfare was set up so that you could survive. Mere survival is not good enough for me. That is why. That and the fear that my grandfather would dig himself out of his grave to kill me if he found out that I was feeding his great grandchild off the pity of others.
 
2007-03-05 12:30:38 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND


Now, THERE'S a question. If welfare is 'easy' money that'll be sufficent to support your household why the fark do you idiots still work? Oh, because you're morally superior to the unemployed, right? You work because of the sense of satisfaction it gives. Your justification for not getting on welfare is that you want to contribute to society, right? Bullshiat.

Actually, I work so that I don't have to depend on or be indebted to anyone. And yes, I do happen to contribute to society. It makes me all warm n fuzzy on the inside.'



Mr. Xhin

Totally my fault. Apparently sharks prefer to be kept, not in a "drawer," but in an "ocean." Stupid me.

/Do you have any band-aids, or some iodine?


Well how were you supposed to know? Common mistake.

I have a safety pin and a bottle of whiskey. Will that work?
 
2007-03-05 12:40:01 PM
A couple of suggestions for your plight:
1. Get married. Seriously, you may not like the idea of marriage and you bf may not either, but you chose to have a child together and that child will always need a mommy and daddy. Wait to get divorced until after your baby moves away from home.

Wanna get married. We're working on that. There's a whole host of issues on that that I won't get to here.

[italic]2. Get some skills. Someone else suggested that you go into childcare. I would suggest getting any certification that that would require. There are also good online college programs or go to a local college and get a degree or certification in something useful (nothing like sociology, philosophy, or theater). You can usually take night classes so the bf can watch your child when you go to class. My stepmom went to a two year business college (she referred to it as "Woolworth U." because it was on top of a Woolworth store) and ended up as a corporate manager for Southwestern Bell. Financial aid is usually available (Pell Grants or state aid) so you should be able to afford it.[/italic]

Sure, would love to go to night classes. Great idea. Problem with that: bf works 11-7 at a job that takes an hour drive. What classes start AFTER 8 at night? Make that 9 at night because it would take me an hour to get to where the classes are being held. I didn't say that I don't have skills. I do. I have lots of talent and intelligence, and skills. But NO ONE in this stupid small town has a use for them, and there are ZERO jobs that could use my skills here, plus be able to work around my bf's schedule given that we only have ONE car. We did have a second car, but we couldn't afford to fix it so we had to get rid of it. Did I mention that our current car is falling apart and will need to be replaced? But to answer your suggestion, I am taking a class. It's a class I can take online, and when I'm done I can work for a national company. I'm working to become a medical transcriptionist. The ONLY reason I can do this is because I don't have to travel or arrange child care to do this job.

[italic]3. Go to church. Again, you may not agree with religion and may not want to go to church, but a good church also provides you with a good social safety net that can help you out in rough times. My wife is a stay at home mother of two (a 1 year old and a 2 year old), she meets with a church group of other moms twice per month and from that has established play dates for the kids and just a support group for when things seem frustrating and unmanageable. The families in this group really help each other out. One lady started receiving chemo for cancer and the entire group started bringing her meals, cleaning her house, helped out with her kids. Another lady's husband is a lawyer and he offered to provide free legal help for any of the stay at home moms.[/italic]

I hate church. I don't even want to get into that.

For the guy who asked why we had a child we couldn't support? It was by accident. I was on birth control at the time, and yes I was taking it properly. When I found out I was pregnant I CHOSE to keep it. We didn't realize until afterwards about the money situation. Work became extremely full of issues and I chose to quit to save my sanity. Hmm...sanity or money? Which do I chose?

For the doing a day care suggestion: Our house is too small, and it wouldn't even come close to passing safety standards for running a daycare (stuff needs to be practically perfect. The biggest one is space. We are living in my bf's fathers house, which he has given us, only he left some things unfinished and the house is falling apart, but it is safe for us just not for a bunch of kids. My neighbor ran a daycare for a few months and I know the qualifications and such.
 
2007-03-05 12:40:41 PM
From the Ice age to the Dole age, there is but one concern,
I have discovered.

Some girls are bigger than others.
And some single mothers are bigger than other single mothers.
 
2007-03-05 12:43:57 PM
clouddancer: But NO ONE in this stupid small town has a use for them, and there are ZERO jobs that could use my skills here,

Why don't you guys move somewhere where there are jobs and public transportation?
 
2007-03-05 12:51:34 PM
And what, besides the atrocity that was the Nazi implimentation of it, is wrong with practicing a bit of eugenics?

I can't believe you actually wrote that with a straight face. Seriously, read that again and come back to me.

After you do, go read up on, for example, the Canadian eugenics program (yes, Canada had a eugenics program for many years). Observe how quickly the program went from "we will sterilize the mental defectives for their own safety" to "we will sterilize people who cause us problems (such as poor folks who have "too many" kids)" to "we will sterilize people we don't particularly like and don't want around any more (such as Native Canadians)". Yep, even in good ol' Canada eugenics went from what you're suggesting to "we'll sterilize non-white people." No Godwin necessary.

There's a reason we don't sterilize people "for their own good" anymore. It was never for their own good; it was for the good of the people wielding the knife. Do you trust the people holding the knife? I don't, and you shouldn't either. Even if they're doing it "for your own good."
 
2007-03-05 12:55:22 PM
The Third Man: There's a reason we don't sterilize people "for their own good" anymore. It was never for their own good; it was for the good of the people wielding the knife.

And it didn't do them much good, either - genetic diversity is a natural resource.
 
2007-03-05 01:06:47 PM
1) Stop giving tax breaks for children
2) Education or job training, you get one or the other for free
3) Ban religion
4) Keep abortion legal
5) Realistic Sex Ed
6) Offer incentives for adoption

Problem Solved.



Hebalo

As Antony said to Cleopatra....
 
2007-03-05 01:28:57 PM
"Depo-Provera is used safely by thousands (tens of thousands, actually) of women every year."

I've known several people on Depo Provera and they turned out miserable. They all had marked weight gain, depression, and one wound up with a 4 week long period.

Depo is nasty shiat. Ever girl I've met that has stopped taking it ballooned in size. Depo = instant fattie.
 
2007-03-05 01:41:52 PM
Being a selfish human, I don't like paying taxes. I also don't like the fact that my tax money goes to people who I wouldn't give money to myself.

Of course, I also realize that a portion of my taxes goes to pay farmers to NOT grow things, and to prop up industries that haven't been viable or profitable in years.

The government gives handouts to everyone, not just welfare mothers. Bridges to nowhere, earmarked tax dollars for outlandish pork projects, government contracts that are suspect to say the LEAST. Entitlements are a big part of the budget, but Social Security and Medicare get the lion's share. I don't hear anyone howling for the elderly to be thrown out on the street.
 
2007-03-05 01:42:09 PM
evilstein: I've known several people on Depo Provera and they turned out miserable. They all had marked weight gain, depression, and one wound up with a 4 week long period.

Plus it has a tendency to cause vaginal dryness after 45 minutes to an hour of intercourse.
 
2007-03-05 01:50:09 PM
Sloth_DC: Strikethrough

Thanks.
 
2007-03-05 02:00:43 PM
I hate to jump on clouddancer's back since she seems to be the scapegoat here - however - either the baby's dad who works 11-7 should get a second job or she should get a job working a different shift. Yes it would be difficult. Yes it would be tiring. But you would get out of your current shiatty situation a little faster. During periods of poverty I nearly always had two jobs. It sucked, but I had bills to pay.
 
2007-03-05 02:03:25 PM
And they wonder why they're ranked #1 in "Worst Countries In the World to be a Child".
 
2007-03-05 02:14:51 PM
'Absentee father', my ass. These slags get pregged deliberately so they can cash in on generous breeder subsidies. It's allways about the donor's wallet. How about these slags be held accountable on their side of the equation?

/flame shield on=1/
 
2007-03-05 02:20:10 PM
It may be wasteful in your opinion or in the opinion of some economists, but it is a Constitutionally-authorized legitimate function of our Governement, while social spending is not.

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, and to spend for the common defense and the general welfare."

"Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states."

"Congress shall have the power to enact all laws necessary and proper to the effectuation of the afforementioned powers."
 
2007-03-05 02:25:22 PM
Adolf_Hitler44: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, and to spend for the common defense and the general welfare."

The word in red does not appear in the US Constitution. And, yes, that changes the meaning of the sentence.

Google "Madison General Welfare" if you want to see how one of the Founding Fathers felt. Or just ask yourself why they bothered having actual enumerated powers below that, since any conceivable legislation could be covered by the "General Welfare" clause if it said what you thought it said.

"Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states."

Social spending does nothing to regulate commerce among the several States. Oh, and stop trying to retype the Constitution from memory, you're slaughtering it.
 
2007-03-05 02:43:20 PM
I don't get the fuss over US welfare... we are hellbent on cutting programs instead of just cutting waste... we spend more on special printers to print to the edge of the page on certain medicare forms than we spend on foodstamps, hud subsidies, and welfare combined... yet we don't hear a word of outrage about the stupidity of not just redesigning the damned form so you can use just any old printer.
 
2007-03-05 02:46:56 PM
firefly212: we spend more on special printers to print to the edge of the page on certain medicare forms than we spend on foodstamps, hud subsidies, and welfare combined... yet we don't hear a word of outrage about the stupidity of not just redesigning the damned form so you can use just any old printer.

Which form? You can print a HCFA1500 on just about any old printer.
 
2007-03-05 02:48:41 PM
firefly212: I don't get the fuss over US welfare... we are hellbent on cutting programs instead of just cutting waste... we spend more on special printers to print to the edge of the page on certain medicare forms than we spend on foodstamps, hud subsidies, and welfare combined... yet we don't hear a word of outrage about the stupidity of not just redesigning the damned form so you can use just any old printer.

We just accept government waste - it's built into a bureaucracy. Corporations have waste too, but at least there is a check at some point with making a profit and competition. No such check on government. Waste is also very hard to measure; accounting is a real biatch sometimes.
 
2007-03-05 02:49:19 PM
Sloth_DC: Google "Madison General Welfare" if you want to see how one of the Founding Fathers felt. Or just ask yourself why they bothered having actual enumerated powers below that, since any conceivable legislation could be covered by the "General Welfare" clause if it said what you thought it said.

I'm kind of sorry I brought it up. I agree with you. My point was that spending billions of dollars on Iraq and calling it "Defense" is just as fallacious as spending billions of dollars on social programs and calling it "welfare."

I just really like to point out logical inconsitenciees between the parties, they both wipe their ass with the constitution while chiding the opposing side for doing the exact same thing.
 
2007-03-05 02:57:15 PM
The Homer Tax: I'm kind of sorry I brought it up. I agree with you. My point was that spending billions of dollars on Iraq and calling it "Defense" is just as fallacious as spending billions of dollars on social programs and calling it "welfare."

Very true.

I just really like to point out logical inconsitenciees between the parties, they both wipe their ass with the constitution while chiding the opposing side for doing the exact same thing.

Which is why I now refuse to be registered with either party :)
 
2007-03-05 02:57:15 PM
www.coloradocollege.edu
 
2007-03-05 03:22:54 PM
Don't have kids if your wife "can't afford" to stay home for more than a few weeks, because I've got news for ya: you can't afford kids in the first place (or you're not willing to make the sacrifices required to raise them properly).

Who's going to breastfeed the baby? Who's going to fall deeply, profoundly in love with him and gaze into his eyes and marvel over his toes for hours on end? Who's going to rock him back to sleep and sing lullabies in the middle of the night? Who's going to see his first smile, bathe him, help him learn to sit up, crawl and walk? Some late-middle-aged absent-minded relative or a series of strangers?

/Flame on, you know I'm right
 
2007-03-05 03:24:34 PM
The Homer Tax: My point was that spending billions of dollars on Iraq and calling it "Defense" is just as fallacious as spending billions of dollars on social programs and calling it "welfare."

Once again, you ignore the central point of one of my previous posts, that the Government also has the power to declare war and raise armies.

/Lights "provide for common defense" straw man on fire.
 
2007-03-05 03:27:05 PM
Work for the dole. It's an idea that I kinda like. Down here, if you're unemployed past a certian length of time, you become slave labour!

Well, not really. You do some work in exchange for your welfare. It works quite nicely - you can get skills and show work on your resume rather than a year long blank spot, and it stops you from sinking into a completely undisciplined life.
 
2007-03-05 03:28:58 PM
mmagdalene: Don't have kids if your wife "can't afford" to stay home for more than a few weeks...
Who's going to breastfeed the baby? Who's going to fall deeply, profoundly in love with him and gaze into his eyes and marvel over his toes for hours on end? Who's going to rock him back to sleep and sing lullabies in the middle of the night? Who's going to see his first smile, bathe him, help him learn to sit up, crawl and walk?


A-men, sistah! That's how we do it at Casa de Biv.

/Which is why I'm often tired, and make tons o' typos.
 
Displayed 50 of 338 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report