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.

(Huffington Post)   New Pennsylvania bill includes provision requiring women to prove they were raped. Want to guess which party inserted the provision?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 474
    More: Sick, Pennsylvania, Equal Pay Act, welfare benefits, Paycheck Fairness Act, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus, Violence Against Women Act  
•       •       •

8717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 1:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 08:02:53 AM  
Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?
 
2012-10-25 08:02:57 AM  
I'll just report that one of the sponsors did it. ;-)
 
2012-10-25 08:03:40 AM  
I think we should go back to the forcible rape standard.

Otherwise, there are simply too many false accusations, and they're devastating.

People experience morning after regret and then revoke consent, which makes the rape retroactive.

This not only creates a false accusation, but cheapens all accusations of rape.
 
2012-10-25 08:05:40 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


Define huge.
 
2012-10-25 08:06:31 AM  

dericwater: dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.

Anti-f**king is gender neutral. Or rather, would or should affect either gender. The anti-abortion platform has been, and will always be, the anti-women-enjoying-sex-without-protection-for-the-sake-of-sex platform.


FTFY


mobile_home_refush: In Mt. and Texas (don't know about the rest) the non-custodial parent has to pay the tanf back.


Same in the UK. If your baby-mama is on benefit and you work then you have to pay their benefit directly from your wages which means that there are waster guys who go around getting lots of women pregnant then farking off who avoid work because they would get no money from it and be on the same money as benefits. A lot of them claim to either be disabled (depression, stress or some other non-physical mental issue) or self employed on a low wage that need to be topped up with tax credits (benefits whilst working) so that they do the minimum amount of work to avoid hassle from the DSS.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:02 AM  

Alphax: Seriously, the ONLY reason to write a bill like this is malice towards poor women.


I have a hunch that they are trying to discourage minority women from having more democrats err babies. Right now they can't come out and say this so they are creating a bullshiat mountain "rape" saga. Scary minorities will be the majority in a few years.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:32 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


Well, then, you should be able to provide us with ample evidence of the rate of welfare fraud and what percentage of it is accounted for by these "Welfare Queens" pumping out babies just to get those sweet, sweet welfare checks.

I await your detailed statistics.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:54 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


Do strangers ever punch you in the face for seemingly no reason? I mean I'm just curious.
 
2012-10-25 08:08:02 AM  
Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.
 
2012-10-25 08:08:11 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


When do you imagine someone on benefits saying "We can`t afford another child"?
 
2012-10-25 08:08:34 AM  

Mr. Carpenter:
Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.


Yep, the world can be pretty farked up. But arguing that welfare rort/fraud is permissible because the world is farked up is pretty farked up too. Willfully permitting people to rort a system and commit fraud is not going to fix it, or the situations you mentioned. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, enacting laws to prevent or at least reduce fraud might enable at least some small improvement. Perhaps (optimistically?) money saved by denying welfare rort/fraud could be directed to actually addressing the cause of problems. If not, then perhaps those funds could be used to at least support victims get out of bad situations.
 
2012-10-25 08:09:17 AM  
I'm not surprised this was (largely) co-sponsored by Republicans. I am surprised that Metcalfe is not one of the co-sponsors.
 
2012-10-25 08:09:23 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


Thus proving that "some women rape easy"
 
2012-10-25 08:09:37 AM  
Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.
 
2012-10-25 08:11:06 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


You are technically correct, but this legislation has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with preventing "baby farming." The Republicans are right on this, but for the wrong reasons. They have accidentally stumbled into a plan that will save the environment and the economy while trying to crack down on poor people simply because they imagine TANF is a significant drag on the state/federal budget that is preventing tax cuts.
 
2012-10-25 08:12:11 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Bullroarer_Took: Debeo Summa Credo: So they are allowing an exception to the rule in the case of rape, but want an actual police report to be filed to prevent people from just checking a "were you raped?" box to get the exception?

Umm, imokwiththis.jpg

You would make a lousy seer.

Thick as a rhinoceros omelet, too, eh?

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the problems with this.

Nope. If you believe we should limit benefits so those already on assistance can't get more assistance if they have another kid (which is debatable), and you think there should be a rape exception, why shouldn't it be required that the rape was reported to prevent fraudulent claims of rape when applying for higher benefits?


Because it's no big leap in reasoning to assume that someone who would fraudulently claim to have been raped might also fraudulently file a report about being raped.

Think of the problems this would cause, say, the police. The percentage of rapes reported would increase (good), the percentage of false reports would go up (bad), likely the percentage of false reports would increase more than the percentage of rapes (worse, as this takes investigative manpower away from the rape cases and sends them chasing ghosts).

Now, I'm sure if you're going to make a false claim, you're going to make up details about who did it. So people are going to be arrested because of bogus charges. Then, sometimes, a woman may be pressured into identifying someone as a rapist for fear of being caught in a lie. For fear of losing the extra money to feed her kid, or worse, being convicted of fraud and losing custody of her her child--she might just keep up the charade. Innocent people will end up in jail because a crying baby hurts a mother's ears more than the moans of Lady Justice.

If you can't see where this will lead then you're just willfully ignoring facts; ignorantly ignoring human nature; decidedly sticking your head in the sand.
 
2012-10-25 08:18:04 AM  

Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.

Yes, I understand. This is why many of us have worked for a long time to try and make sure that all women can access affordable, accessible birth control so that women can decide when to have children. Unfortunately, those efforts have been systematically dismantled by the same people who deride poor women with children as "welfare queens".


Irrelevant. The fact that Republicans sponsored this law is an ad hominem attack. The bill should be judged on its merits.

This is Pennsylvania, not Mississippi or Texas. There's affordable, accessible birth control. A Pennsylvanian woman who's already on assistance has the tools, means and responsibility to prevent another pregnancy.

The law and policy, as it stands, provides more money to Pennsylvanian women who are already on welfare when they conceive additional children via consensual sex. All they have to do is lie about being raped.

I'm perfectly comfortable to say I'm not okay with this.

/pro-choice
//voting democrat
///hates fox news
////beginning to dislike Huffington Post
 
2012-10-25 08:19:27 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


Oh man, that's terrible. My best friend was also drugged before being assaulted by...ugh...multiple men. It took me over a year to get her out of her shell, and even longer to have her use the restroom with a drink sitting at the bar, even though I was sitting right there. For a while even a thunderstorm would rattle her.

She's doing well now, and even has a boyfriend who treats her like a queen. One of the men responsible is in prison. The other two have not been found, but these things have a way of working themselves out.

If you know what I mean.
 
2012-10-25 08:19:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Define huge.


Anything more than 2 1/2 inches?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:24 AM  
All of them?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:25 AM  

bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.

Yes, I understand. This is why many of us have worked for a long time to try and make sure that all women can access affordable, accessible birth control so that women can decide when to have children. Unfortunately, those efforts have been systematically dismantled by the same people who deride poor women with children as "welfare queens".

Irrelevant. The fact that Republicans sponsored this law is an ad hominem attack. The bill should be judged on its merits.

This is Pennsylvania, not Mississippi or Texas. There's affordable, accessible birth control. A Pennsylvanian woman who's already on assistance has the tools, means and responsibility to prevent another pregnancy.

The law and policy, as it stands, provides more money to Pennsylvanian women who are already on welfare when they conceive additional children via consensual sex. All they have to do is lie about being raped.

I'm perfectly comfortable to say I'm not okay with this.

/pro-choice
//voting democrat
///hates fox news
////beginning to dislike Huffington Post


What about the farking kid?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:31 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: Dusk-You-n-Me: Define huge.

Anything more than 2 1/2 inches?


Are we talking girth or length here? : )
 
2012-10-25 08:25:48 AM  
I volunteer as a victim's advocate. What that means is that when a rape victim shows up at an area hospital I will be called to go and be with that person, since they generally don't show up with moral support, and generally only have a vague idea of the process that goes on that comes from watching Law and Order SVU. They don't know that they are going to be spending the whole day at the hospital, first getting blood tests, then going through an invasive exam and evidence gathering session that can take upwards of six hours. And if they have decided to press charges at that point, they will be subject to several hours of police interrogation immediately after the exam. Sometimes going through the exam is too psychologically traumatic for someone. Sometimes there's virtually no chance of conviction because it is someone you were in a consensual sexual relationship with prior to the rape, and unless it was violent in a way that left bruises etc. that gets really difficult to prove. Sometimes you know these women would be putting themselves through hell for absolutely nothing.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm big in favor of reporting and prosecuting, and getting these people off the street so that they don't hurt anyone else. But it is far from a black and white issue. There have been times that I have sat in a room with a victim and a specially trained forensic nurse, and a police officer, in a situation where a victim is hesitant to press charges and none of us wants to really encourage her because we have all agreed that the chances of any kind of conviction was virtually nil because of various circumstances, even if none of us doubts that this person is telling us the truth. (I know that is vague, but I have confidentiality restrictions) And I wonder what is going to happen if these women go through the hell of reporting it, and the rapist is not convicted. Now she has a baby and a court has found that person not guilty due to lack of evidence. Now are we going to call her a liar and deny benefits? How is that supposed to work out?
 
2012-10-25 08:26:55 AM  

bonobo73: ////beginning to dislike Huffington Post


HuffPo is really only worthwhile as a springboard that reports on items our toothless mainstream media can't or won't be bothered with. I'll catch a link there and then google it for a source I find less sensational. It's not that HuffPo outright lies to further an agenda; I just dislike how it's written much of the time.

And I'm a raging libtard commie pinko socialist tax&spend n**ger-lovin' demoRAT.

/whatever you do, steer clear of DailyKOS
 
2012-10-25 08:28:46 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


There should be parent benefit, not child benefit. Each parent living with a child gets benefit. If two parents live with their child then they get twice as much. If you have lots of kids you will have to share it out. This would lead to lots of people on benefits being better off financially if both parents live with just one child. Two children should be affordable and three should be a struggle but just manageable.

It`s like those really really fat people, you don`t get like that without an enabler...
 
2012-10-25 08:29:09 AM  

Mr. Carpenter: bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No, it was my pimp that raped me and if I tell the police it was my pimp I'll go to prison for prostitution and then when I get out he'll slit my throat and put my body in a dumpster and no one will so much as bat an eyelash.."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...

Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.


I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?
 
2012-10-25 08:29:54 AM  

SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.


What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?
 
2012-10-25 08:30:46 AM  

gadian: Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.


What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:09 AM  

FlashHarry: ah, yes - the rape-publican party strikes again.


Done in one. Came here to make a statement using the term "Rapepublican Party" also.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:12 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


Overpopulation is a global problem. Reducing the U.S. population, especially through anti-immigration measures, won't have much of an impact on that.

Let me say it again, for anyone who may have missed it. While fraud is a problem to be addressed, punishing the child for the poor choices of its parent is hardly a satisfactory solution. Anyone who can't look a child in the eye and say, "Sorry kid, I can't help feed you because your mother should never have had you," needs to stop advocating for things like "financial teeth" as a means to confront the issue of people on assistance making poor choices about family planning.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:19 AM  
No, subby, I don't care to guess the party. Care to guess why not?
 
2012-10-25 08:32:25 AM  

Cataholic: gadian: Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.

What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.


What's really dispicable is letting a baby go hungry because you're mad his mother had sex.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:34 AM  
Instead of all this assanine legislation maybe they should just limit the number of children per family that can receive benefits. Nevermind this might increase the use of contraception and morning after pills.
 
2012-10-25 08:36:28 AM  

bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...


Must. Stop. The Min-Maxxers. At. All. Costs!!!!
 
2012-10-25 08:38:18 AM  

SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.


You'll have to do better than that.
 
2012-10-25 08:39:48 AM  
What's wrong, Fark? Are you saying women are incapable of lying? First I've heard of this.
 
2012-10-25 08:41:49 AM  

dready zim: Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?

When do you imagine someone on benefits saying "We can`t afford another child"?


as it currently stands they never would because more children=more money. This is the problem. You cant go on and on and cry about low test scores and people that cant function in society because of a lack of education when you promote and incentivise the most disadvantaged among us to constantly pass on their failed traits to ore and more children who have every high likelihood of also being failures. Genetics plays a large role in who we are, growing up in a terrible home to ignorant parents who made poor decisions has an even bigger impact. Combine this with a strong propensity to be single parents raiding multiple children who dont get the attention they need and you have a recipe for fail. Sorry, "think of the children" emotional arguments fail when you realize these parents who cat keep in in their pants are just condemning these children

/is African American
/raised by a single mother
/seen family members and many people from the neighborhood realize having more kids is the answer
/realizes this cycle needs to e broken
 
2012-10-25 08:42:36 AM  
Anyone who supports that bill is a racist, period. That's all there is to it.
 
2012-10-25 08:44:25 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


So huge you had to use a non-specific adjective instead of just getting a real number? "Welfare" accounts for about 13% of federal spending (unless you work for Fox News and cram a bunch of things into the definition to conveniently inflate it over a trillion, which is just lying). What part of that 13% is the "HUGE" problem, exactly?

Cataholic: It's not compassion.


No, it's not, but since it's all bullshiat you made up in your head, I fail to see in what practical way your silly fantasy-land nonsense matters. It is cute, though, how you can hop from foot to foot so gracefully on the matter of "welfare queens". One day it's a cycle of vicious dependency created by an ebil gubmint entity scrounging for votes the next I'm being told by one of your losers that it's because people on cash assistance are just lazy and don't feel like getting a job.

Amazing how that switches back and forth depending on what particular talking point you need to push on any given day, isn't it?
 
2012-10-25 08:44:57 AM  

Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.


FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.
 
2012-10-25 08:45:31 AM  

SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.


Yeah, I mean they have a soup kitchen they can go to after all. At least until we can figure out how to shut them down too
 
2012-10-25 08:46:45 AM  

LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


Know how I know you've never been poor?
 
2012-10-25 08:47:39 AM  
In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.
 
2012-10-25 08:49:19 AM  
remember when the republican party was going to focus on the economy and not cultural issues? ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
2012-10-25 08:51:15 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

Know how I know you've never been poor?


So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?
 
2012-10-25 08:53:36 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


This.

Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

Cataholic: What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.


And this.

Why the fark should someone who is already on welfare be having kids, when birth control (condoms are cheap and you can get them for free if you aren't a total dumbass) and abortion are available? Oh, right, because they are the ones who vote Democrat.
 
2012-10-25 08:53:40 AM  

LiberalConservative: FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


According to whom?
 
2012-10-25 08:54:34 AM  

REMINDER: People on welfare didn't cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did.

- LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) September 21, 2012
 
2012-10-25 08:55:55 AM  

LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?


I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction
 
2012-10-25 08:56:42 AM  
I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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