This board?:dubious::rolleyes: “Pro” has been I think two “guests”. Con has been 3-4 time that, many of whom are Charter members, who more represent the board than some “guest”.
Look, anyone can post here, and a few outre ideas by a guest- idea that are quite possible not being seriously proposed, but proposed either just to get a rise or to stimulate debate- does not in any way indicate what way this board has or is going.
Cheshire Cat:* Oh, you can’t help that. Most everyone’s mad here.*
Hence the problem. They can’t be forced to take personal responsibility but we as taxpayers can be forced to support their children?
Right. Scam artists like DeVry University. Where, for a large sum of money, you may or may not learn useful skills.
More trades used to be taught in schools. But those who hate children also hate public education–so they should be glad that these programs are among the many that are cut.
And they are!
The fact that people don’t remain in the system long doesn’t show that most people on welfare weren’t always poor which is your claim. Your cite DOES NOT back up your claim.
People can go off welfare for a multitude of reasons–children aging out, time limits on how long you can be on a particular program, people who stop looking for work, criminal convictions, and simply getting a raise from $12K/yr to 13K/yr (numbers made up.)
Those people were poor before they got on welfare, they are poor while on welfare, and they’re still poor after they leave welfare. No where does it say that MOST people (your words) on welfare were middle class or better before they went on welfare.
Your personal experience notwithstanding.
Pretty much “welfare” ended in the USA back in 1996.
The United States has no national program of cash assistance for non-disabled poor individuals who are not raising children.
And that is a direct, personal insult for which you are being Warned to refrain in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
Yes. That is how representative democracy works. If you disagree, you can vote in representatives to repeal the laws. Can you think of a better system?
Well, yeah, that’s a new idea to me but I think there may be some merit there.
No kidding those numbers are made up.
Are you even aware of what “welfare” is these days? Sure, kids can “age out” of TANF but they may well still qualify for food stamps - which, by the way, has no lifetime limits (although there may be work requirements attached). So far as I know, the only sort of criminal convictions that bar you from food stamps are drug convictions, others still allow you to qualify (although it’s been awhile since I reviewed the rules so that may not be 100% accurate).
So… are food stamps welfare? Or is it only TANF? What definition are you using?
If they’re poor BUT make too much money to qualify for welfare what do you care?. You now want to order around people who are NOT on welfare, but still don’t make enough money to make you happy?
Tell me, what’s your cut off for “I make enough money that D’Anconia no longer has any business butting into my life”?
Yes, that’s what I said, people can lose their benefits for failure to meet work requirements.
What about cases of fraud against the government? Pretty sure you lose your benefits then, as well. Also if you are incarcerated for any extended period of time. A prisoner is already a “guest” of the state, with three hots and a cot, and the state isn’t going to send food stamps to itself. :rolleyes:
This question is what definition you are using, since you made the following claim back in post #136.
Again, this is a position for which you’ve offered no support.
Are you aware that most people aren’t sentenced to life? Once they’re back on the street they can, indeed, qualify for government benefits aside from the already noted exceptions.
Ms. Broomstick Do you have any backup for your claim in post # 136?
I’m not going to be asking again, because banging one’s head against the wall gets old fast.
Aside from this not being true, I didn’t say any of that.
You really should actually research things rather than just believing whatever the talking heads are telling you.
I said this before - cite?
Oh please. People put their hands out long before anything like that happens. People with pride don’t start looking for those handouts at the first sign of trouble.
I snipped off the rest of this rant for space sake. I have already listed several other ways to deal with this issue that doesn’t involve paying people to have babies, and you didn’t like any of them, so I’m simply not going to get into it again.
Again, you should research before stating “facts”. If nothing else, who is going around checking to see if all these folks on welfare have a job/are looking for a job/in school? That’s right, no one because the funds aren’t available. As for caring for a child under 5, that’s why welfare encourages people to have more children.
Well, it doesn’t match whatever your reality is, but seeing as how I spent many years living under the poverty level, I do have a good grasp of how people on welfare act.
The rest I snipped because it seems like the poster is working hard at misunderstanding what I post.
Cough. Seems like this would be status quo for the government … 
Would it really cost that much more to have a list of medications, etc that make Norplant (or whatever) not required. And would that cost be more than what it would cost to do the Norplant (or whatever)?
Anyone on a medication long term that essentially makes the woman sterile and anyone who can prove they are unable to get pregnant would just need to provide the paperwork once and that’s that. Like me - I had a tubal in 1989.
No, age would be covered under “reasons why I can’t get pregnant” - i.e. being post menopausal.
Here you are getting into something that I really have no idea about. I know a lot of older women have babies, but I am unaware of whether or not they had any help.
I want to change welfare because of financial reasons, and because far too many children are growing up in very poor situations.
This is the only part I will address, since the rest is either not a response to anything I’ve said, or more of the same. Anyway, since I don’t pay to raise kids of higher socio-economic classes, it is not my responsibility to deal with them ditching class or dropping out.
Whoa.
A) OK, I personally don’t get why everyone and anyone, whether they are at all qualified to do so or not, has the iron clad right to have as many kids as they want, whether they can care for them or not. Why is that the only absolute right people have?
B) What? You think if we don’t fund poor people to have kids they can’t afford to raise, we won’t have enough replacements?
C) This is a moral/religious decision which should not be forced on those who do not have a problem with abortions. Particularly in the case of someone having a baby just so they can get on welfare.
Ms. D’Aconia, I actually work for a living and thus am not available 24/7 to fetch cites for you. Stop nagging me and I might actually get around to fulfilling your request in a day or two when I actually have more than 10 minutes to spend on line. If you’re going to be a one-note singer why should I bother. Stop banging your head, exercise a little patience, and we’ll all be happier.
The problem is that kids of any socio-economic class who drop out or are abused or neglected are also more likely to drop in socio-economic level (i.e. wind up on welfare) or engage in criminal activities, either of which might potentially impact you. That’s why you should have some interest in children being raised well regardless of whether tax money is involved or not.
It’s not an absolute right, but you are correct it’s a pretty important one to most people. It’s because for most people having kids is a high priority for them, even if you never wanted any yourself.
Part of the reason the right is so protected is because in the past it wasn’t and some cruel abuses occurred. In reaction, the pendulum swung the other way.
The only reason the US population is growing is actually immigrants (yes, including the illegal ones). The higher socio-economic classes are not having sufficient children to replace themselves, so yes, either we let poor folks have kids, too or bring in more foreigners.
The situation is even worse in Europe and some parts of Asia like Japan - the birthrate is below replacement rate. Yes, some governments actually give ALL parents money/subsidies/etc. to encourage more kids. Apparently, the best birth control is education and wealth.
Although I don’t agree that people have babies to “get on welfare”, I do agree with you that such decisions should not be forced on people. Reproductive freedom should include the right to say no as well as yes. Poor people really do have less access to abortions than the wealthy and I’d like to see that changed, not because I think abortions are wonderful (I’d rather women not get unwantedly pregnant in the first place) but I believe poor women should have as much access to ending a pregnancy as her wealthy sisters.
I am not going to bother looking up citations because, having watched your schtick for several years, I know that you simply ignore anything that does not fit into your belief system, but you are wrong and Broomstick is right on each of these points.
Alternative old age funding was only one of the uses for which the Social Security System has been used from its earliest days. Lots of people (typically dependent children with a few other categories added) get SSI benefits when a primary caregiver dies. Spouses and children of retired workers were added to the system in 1939, four years after the initial law and one year prior to the first pay-out. Disability benefits were added in 1954.
Had Social Security been a pension fund, no one could have received any benefits before their “account” had built up enough funds to be disbursed. The reality is that, with inflation, (and longer lifespans), most retirees receive more money than they ever paid in, supported by existing taxes.
As to Welfare, there is a reason that the 1996 change limited the payments to two years: at that time, over 66% of the people who went on welfare found ways to get off in two years or fewer. Even in the bad old days when welfare had no limit, the vast majority of people got off it as son as they could.
Which circles back to - why is it that the only absolute right people have is the right to reproduce, no matter how unsuited they might be?
It isn’t? When is it not?
When was it in the US that people didn’t have the right to reproduction?
“Bringing in more foreigners” is a problem how?
It helps if you set aside your ill-conceived bias and actual read (and understand) what has been written. (Oh, and no need to respond to my PM, since you have answered my question right here.)
Perhaps you should look up the definition of “pension” since you seem to think that it only pays out after a certain age, until a certain amount is reached. Maybe your pension only does that, but - for example - the pension I will get from the employer I worked for the longest doesn’t work that way. If I manage to live a normal lifespan, I will get more from that than I put in, and that isn’t coming from anything other than the payments I and my co-workers made AND the investments the employer made with that money. For another example, one of my husband’s pensions will go to me should he predecease me. It also has a long term disability clause.
You should also read up on Social Security and how it is funded before you start squawking about taxpayer money going to those on it. For a place that is supposed to be fighting ignorance, an amazing number of people here " simply ignore anything that does not fit into (their) belief system". Social Security is no more like welfare than unemployment benefits are.
Since Broomstick can’t seem to do it, do you have a cite for “the vast majority” getting off welfare asap, and also not going back on it as soon as they could? If nothing else, 66% is not the vast majority, and it doesn’t say anything about those who just figure a way to get back on.
When considered spreading bad genes, like being a career criminal* or mentally defective See Buck v. Bell. The last confirmed forced sterilization was in Oregon in 1981 although there is reason to believe that forced sterilization is still legal under certain conditions.
*Skinner v Oklahoma did not make forced sterilization for criminals illegal. It simply had trouble with that particular law because white-collar criminals were specifically excluded.
This is gibberish that responds to nothing I have posted.
Typical.
As to your PM: I rarely respond to personal vendettas attempted through that medium, so you do, indeed, have your answer.