I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers had food stamps and Medicare in mind.
I notice idiot, that you totally ignored my Reagan tax increases post. Why is that?
Ok idiot, you define “promote the general welfare” for me.
~ crickets chirping ~
[Judge Smails]
"Weeellllllll.
We’re waiting"
[/Judge Smails]
You know, this really frosts me. Do you really think that all poverty is due to laziness and lack of balls?
I’ll give you the example of a friend of mine, because I suspect she is quite typical of the working poor. She was born thirty-odd years ago, the product of a drunken mother and an abandoning father. She pretty much grew up on the streets, and married in her late teens. That marriage produced one child. Some five or six years later, she and her husband were divorced (he was somewhat abusive). A few years later, some friends of hers bought her some drinks on her birthday. Since she doesn’t normally drink, she got quite drunk, had a one night stand, and got knocked up. Despite the brief nature of the encounter, the guy (who had fathered several other children on other mothers previously) moved in and the family got by - a man, a woman and two kids. They were living in an apartment when I moved in next door. They weren’t well off, but they got by.
A few years down the road, the guy decides he likes drinking and the single life better than being a responsible family man. He moves out. The court awards my friend some minimal child support.
My friend works for about 9$ an hour. She has no benefits, and if she or her children are sick or have any other problems that require time off from work, she doesn’t get paid. Her older child has an immunity deficiency, which has caused problems, and he’s now a teenager, which causes problems in itself. In the mean time, both men who are legally required to pay child support have ceased doing so. My friend has tried to get legal recourse, but unfortunately, the most they can do is to throw the men into jail, which doesn’t get her any money. In the mean time, her life is an ongoing series of crises. Because she is always broke, she often has to pay higher prices or fines when she falls behind. Things that would make little difference to you or me are devastating to her. Her car is old and used, and often breaks down; does she spend money she doesn’t have to get it fixed, or miss work? She or her children are sick - does she pay to go to the doctor, or wait until they have to go to the ER, where they can’t be turned away, but they end up paying far more?
This woman is extremely honest, cares deeply about her children, and works very hard. Her poverty makes her life a misery - she’s deeply depressed and has tried to commit suicide a couple of times. And this has been WITH my help - without it, she would have been on the street several years ago. She’s never taken Wellfare, never been on drugs, never been a drunkard. She’s not eligible for any aid because on paper, her income is too high - except that she doesn’t get that income, because she’s not getting her child support.
So tell me, millroyj, just exactly should she go about “growing a pair and helping herself?” Even if her problems can be traced to a too young marriage and not enough education, should she and her children suffer in misery for the rest of their lives? Despite how hard she has tried, there’s a good chance her children won’t do any better than she has. How many generations have to suffer so that you get to keep a hundred dollars or so more a year in taxes? Yes, people should take responsibility for their decisions. But what about their children? What about the decisions they made when very young that were in essence irrevocable? Just how much punishment do you feel this girl deserves for marrying young and having a baby, for being the daughter of lousy parents herself? How much punishment do her kids deserve? How about theirs?
My friend is not unusual. The working poor are numerous and growing. Yes, a few people manage to escape. But they are rare, exceptional, and lucky. Most of us, had we been born to my friend’s circumstances, would have ended up as badly off or worse.
Compassionate conservatism, my ass!
Just to remind our friend that there are some unanswered question hanging out here. ** milroyj**? Would you like to answer or shall we put you down as just one more gas bag?
So in answer to my previous post, Clinton’s anti-terrorist policy was a failure because it placed too much emphasis on law enforcement. Fortunately Bush reversed that policy and terrorists were never a problem for America again.
That is negligent government.
It’s kind of sad that your philosophy permits the government to spend tax money on killing people, but not on helping people.
In what way, Liberal? You used to call yourself ‘Libertarian.’ So tell me, in what way was the government negligent? Should it have forced the guy to stay with my friend when he wasn’t happy doing so? Should it have awarded my friend so much child support that, even supposing he were normally employed and making steady income, he couldn’t afford to live himself?
In many cases, two people don’t make enough money between them that they can afford to live separately and support children. Again, you’re a self-described liberatarian. What should the government do? Force people to meet income limits before they would be permitted to reproduce? Hey, you’d get no argument from me personally - but I don’t have or want kids, and I make enough money to qualify anyway.
As for now, you could say that the government is being negligent in that they are not enforcing the child support they set. He owes some $6000 back support (two years worth). He sure as hell doesn’t have $6000; he just barely makes enough to support himself. They could jail him. How would that help my friend feed her kids (and buying food sometimes IS an issue)?
You want to say Iraq is the keystone to your “worst president” argument? I say Iraq has a looong way to go before it reaches the level of “wrongness” as Vietnam. In terms of total American deaths, it’s also tough to beat the 600,000 dead from the Civil War. Both of those horrible, horrible situations should sit squarely on the shoulders of the President (or Presidents) who managed the US into them. The Presidents responsible for both of these cannot reasonably be considered better than Bush, look at what they gave us!
Tell you what, why don’t I grow a pair and come and help myself to your house, your bank account, your car, and whatever’s in your fridge.
jackass.
Ok, then Lyndon Johnson and Jefferson Davis it is.
In my personal estimation, Adams ranks pretty low. For my lifetime, our current president and his Alien and Sedition acts would be at the bottom.
Is that a threat?
By not forcing the parents to honor the commitment they made to their children. Fuck what the parents want; that is something they should have considered before pumping out the kiddies. A human child is utterly defenseless, and lives or dies by the whims of adults. It is astounding to me that you, as a liberal, would advocate that defenseless children suffer simply because their parents have changed their minds. You have no compunction shifting the burden to people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to bear those children, and yet you scoff at holding those responsible who did. There are people who give more thought to purchasing a new car than to having a child. They carefully calculate their ability to afford their car. Luckily, that is because there are lending institutions who require that of them. Were you to have your way, a man who wrecks his car through no fault of his own should be restored by other people who are minding their own business. Should they be able to afford a child before having one? Of. Fucking. Course. It is not necessary that their lifestyle be lavish, by any means, but cranking out kids thoughtlessly and without regard to whether you can sustain them, or else making a frivolous decision such as having a child to cement your relationship or having one as a trial balloon to see whether you’re ready to be a parent — these comprise a heinous disregard for the health and safety of the children. You’ve got the cart pulling the horse. You are defending a man who, once he’d had his kids, decided that he’d rather go out and get drunk and not fool with them. And now you whine that he can’t get his life together sufficiently to care for them. You blind fool. First, have the man settle down and improve his life — THEN let him reproduce. The court should force the man to support his children no matter what it takes. If he will do nothing else, then let him do hard labor and send his wages to his children. You have woefully lamented the both the woman’s suffering and the man’s. Meanwhile, the eyes of their children are upon you, you feckless hag.
No, milroyj, it was a mockery of your professed belief that a macho attitude can apparently solve desperate poverty.
Still waiting for answers on the questions addressed to you above.
Liberal, I haven’t defended the man. I think he’s a total asshole. But the courts won’t award a custodial more money than non-custodial parent can afford and still live, and generally speaking, that doesn’t seem completely unreasonable. In any case, the courts’ effective means of enforcement is limited. When you live on the lower fringe of the economic world, you find many employers are willing to pay people under the table so that they won’t have to pay payroll taxes. As a libertarian, I suspect you might applaud that. Unfortunately, it allows guys like this one to hide any earnings they might have.
I’ve asked what you felt the government realistically should have done. Your response, sorted out from the insults based on a misapprehension of my meaning, is to put the deadbeat dad to heavy labor and send his wages to his child. Now, who were you planning to have employ him? Shall we set up a government agency that has labor camps for deadbeats? Personally, I kind of like the idea, but it hardly meets your usual ideal of less government, and I suspect might end up costing more than just helping out the mother would.
I agree that people shouldn’t reproduce before they can afford to do so. How were you planning on enforcing that? What’s the penalty if they fail? Because right now, the penalty is that the child suffers. The deadbeats may or may not suffer as well, but the kids get screwed.
Libertarianism is great if you’re willing to agree that the sins of the parents shall be visited on the children, unto the nth generation. It’s all very well to demand responsibility for one’s decisions, but what do you do about the innocents who suffer?
You’re a bright guy, Liberal. If you can find a way to solve this, I’ll be overjoyed to hear it. But if you’re going to support libertarian policies, it’s best you understand who suffers. We do precious little for our working poor right now.
THe problem is, you’ve got three basic choices:
One, you can let people suffer, including children.
Two, you can enforce people taking full responsibility for their kids. Think this one out. Are you going to disallow people from getting divorces or separating? Even if they stay living at home, how do you prevent them from blowing their money on themselves rather than their kids? Prevent them from having kids in the first place? How - contraceptives in the water? There are still people pissed about flouride! In any case, if you think this out, you end up with a police state. And who decides what MY responsibilities constitute?
Three, you can bite the bullet and help children who need help, regardless of why.
Right now, we’re doing a confused and lousy job of combining the three.
Police state? 
For fighting coercion, strict enforcement is exactly what is needed, and deadbeat parents are coercing the most defenseless members of the population. There need be no policemen forcing you to do things against your will, so long as you are peaceful and honest. But when you’ve made a baby, you’ve made a commitment — not to your partner, not to the state — but to the child. He needs police and courts to enforce his rights for him. The best thing you could do for the working poor is remove the yoke of coercion from their backs. A man can be both poor and of good character. The problem with the deadbeat dad is not his pocket; it is his heart. I do not give a rat’s ass how much he must suffer to support his children. I do not care that it ruin his life. He made his decision as an adult to bear the the children. And why shouldn’t he? It is the well-known practice that you site of collective hand-wringing and sympathy for the alleged plight of poor old helpless cads like him that sends out an uneqivocal signal to all who can hear that the children don’t matter. Start sending a different signal, and send it consistently.
I ask again, Liberal, how? I’m not wringing my hands for these guys, believe me. I’m asking you how you enforce this.
What do you mean “how”? You put a gun to his worthless head, and say, “Work, asshole.” Then you take the money he earns and give it to his children. You do this until he agrees to support them voluntarily.