I know where debate threads go, thanks. But alas, I am a lurker at heart. You’re welcome to start one yourself and quote me if you like, but I’ll probably disappear back into the shadows once this thread is over.
They have other options than starving, like private charities, or taking the birth control or, gee I don’t know… getting a job?
Surely that’s an argument for not having welfare at all.
No, people are going to fall on hard times. People lose jobs, houses burn down, kids get cancer. That’s life. It’s good that there’s something to fall back on, but nobody ought to be allowed to abuse it because it isn’t free. Somebody’s tax dollars are paying for it.
Uh, OK. I am supposed to guess what you think I was wrong about? And no, I still see no reason why I should pay to provide toys for children.
See below
Shrug. It’s boring.
I imagine, if you weren’t so eager to by a snotrag, you would have asked if there was anything about driving a truck like that I couldn’t do before demanding I go get a CDL.
Only to those who rush to judge. My husband was laid off, causing us to dip into savings, so we do not have as much left to fall back on should something else happen. I applied for SSDI so I would have at least some income, so that we don’t become in need due to his getting laid off again, some emergency, whatever. It’s called planning ahead.
You want me to explain why you aren’t making sense?
See above.
The issue with welfare is always the same - to dis-incentivise social parasitism without punishing the needy.
The problem with a scheme that essentially automatically cuts people off for getting pregnant and having a kid, is that single moms on welfare are quite often going to be ‘genuinely needy’.
I suppose one could say that it is all their own fault, but that doesn’t address the issue - we don’t kick people out of hospital for having cancer caused by smoking, and we don’t stop someone’s disability payments because they became parapalegic riding their motorcycle for fun. We do not, in general, prevent the needy from obtaining a living because their need was self-inflicted - in fact in many cases "need’ is going to be self-inflicted to an extent.
We may deplore their choices and lifestyles, but condemning them to starvation isn’t going to fly, for the simple reason that in general we do not wish to live in a society with starving people in it - no matter how foolish we happen to think they are.
YES. I want you to explain why my sentence does not make any sense.
YES!
No, you did not get to the point. You avoid the question.
Look, there only 3 possibilities, and they are mutually exclusive:
There is NO other possibility. It’s like either being pregnant or not being pregnant. There is no third possibility. In the list above, there are no other possibilities.
According your claims, 1) and 3) do not apply.
That leaves us with 2). You are disabled and you are not able to work.
This means you are in need. Yes, if you are disabled and you are not able to work, you are in need. Now, your husband or relatives may pay for you, but you are still in need. It’s not cause by poverty, but by disability, but it is still need.
Calling that appling for welfare/SSDI (whatever) not to “get into need” (WTF?) is bullshit.
I wouldn’t have a problem with providing a basic shelter, food, and running water package for those who aren’t able or willing to support themselves. We are civilised, after all. We can, as I have said before, provide a decent life for the kids without giving the parents a free ride for 18 years. Welfare in any form should not be seen as a right, but as the privilige of living in a caring society. Priviliges can be revoked at any time.
Exactly. My last job I had for five years and it was over a period of time that my supervisor was allowing more and more flexibility, as I proved that I was worth the hassle. But, that company got bought and most of the work sent out of state, and no employer is going to want to give me that sort of flexibility right off the bat.
No, it is “it’s not welfare if I am taking back the money I put in (was forced to put into) the program”, and it is “children are taking a good chunk of my money, money I can no longer afford to have taken”, and it is “playgrounds shouldn’t be funded by the taxpayer”.
You’ll continue to wait unless you get more specific since again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Let me know if you do.
Then, you should probably post that sentence, eh? I am certainly not going to dig back thru a ton of posts to try to find whichever sentence you are talking about.
So, if Bill Gates became disabled and unable to work, you would automatically assume he was in need? Are you completely surrounded by irresponsible people? And that is a serious question because here in the US it would be entirely possible. However, unlike them, my husband and I have no debt other than our mortgage - our cars are paid off, no loans and very rarely any credit card debt. We also have savings and investments, which we would like to use to fund our retirement but if there was some disaster, like the house burning down, we would use those. We are not in need as defined by the federal government, but we could be if he got laid off and couldn’t get a job again, which is possible since he is over 55.
Well, that’s just rude. Disability does not equal need.
But I should pay for tennis courts, right? WE ALL PAY FOR THINGS WE DON’T USE. Deal with it and stop being so bitter. It’s the nature of the beast, the beast you have no role in changing because you don’t vote.
I’m eager to buy a snotrag? Why, when there are so many for free around here?
Demanded? Just like I accused you of lying about your childhood, right? No, bitch, I was actually really kidding about the CDL, but it was a lame joke and you have no sense of humor, so chalk it up to that.
But you admitted that you would accept more money than you put into the system.
Admittedly, I’m kind of curious too. Here we go.
I’m not the one acting bitter here, who is harping on the same stupid thing over and over, being nasty in every post. As well as not getting the point - it isn’t just “paying for things we don’t use”.
So? Everyone who gets social security hopes to live long enough to get more out than they put in. In my case, you can call it repayment for the taxes I pay for children.
You could call it rose-scented shit if you wanted, too, but that won’t make it true.
What taxes are you paying for children? According to your posts, you have no income and very little savings; where do taxes come in for you?
I would guess that it’s the principle of the thing.