You are very mistaken in thinking that you have rights over other persons’ reproduction.
I didn’t say anything like that. For one thing, I said “all for”, as in “support”, which isn’t anything like me saying I think I have the right to direction anyone’s reproduction. For another, I said specifically that I have no problem with anyone’s reproduction as long as it isn’t trampling on the rights of others. It’s already well established that an individual’s rights WRT their reproduction cannot extend to denying other people their rights.
It helps if you read what I write rather than just jumping to whatever your favorite conclusion is.
No one actually does this except in your delusions. No one elects to have a baby with the intent of getting more state funding.
This statement is as supported by cites as anything you’ve said.
Just out of curiosity, has curlcoat ever backed up anything she said with a citation?
As bad an idea as it is, I am assuming that you mean to say that there have been no cites to support that there are people who have kids with the intent of getting more state funding, correct? Not that this is what I said - what I actually did say was “People who chose to have and keep babies they know they cannot afford are not “working hard to change” their situations.” You even quoted it! This is not the same thing as a women deciding one day “gee, I want more government money, I think I’ll have a baby!”
However, I have in previous threads on this type of subject provided cites showing that people do at times decide to have babies knowing that there is aid out there they can apply for to help them pay for it, or instead of saving, as a fallback plan. There was even a thread one time where, I think it was, a 20-something girl with 2? kids even said right out that they had no savings or anything, so she just planned on going to the government if her husband lost his job (I’m pretty sure she wasn’t working).
Or others who just kind of blither into pregnancy and childbirth without even stopping to think about the consequences, such as the 14 year old daughter of a friend who decided to keep her baby, then neglected it for two years and finally abandoned it. She just figured mom would pay for the baby and when she found out mom couldn’t afford it, applied for all the aid she could find.
You may not want to believe it, but there are a lot of irresponsible people out there raising children.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
Just out of curiosity, has curlcoat ever backed up anything she said with a citation?
[/quote]
I used to but gave it up as a waste of time. People either ignore them, try to claim they are biased or just flat don’t seem to get them.
No, no, the last word is mine!
“A lot” is a lie or a blatant appeal to numbers instead of relative numbers. There are no more than 5% of the children in this country receiving Federal aid, which seems an adequate ballpark for the number of children getting aid in general.
Cue “that’s like eleventy billion kids though”. Who the hell cares? Rate is the only meaningful measure.
If you came up with something more than anecdotes then we might give a shit about your opinions. Nice well-poisoning though, regarding how no one listens to your cites.
Nowai!
Cue curlcoat.
I said irresponsible people, not people receiving aid for their children. Do you just automatically assume that those receiving aid must be irresponsible?
Well that’s cold. No concern for all these kids living like that? No concern for any portion of our enormous debt if it is “too small” for you?
Shrug. I’m not going to do your work for you. I told you that I made cites earlier on this subject, you can search. Or you can let Idle Thoughts have his precious last word.
Muffin, quit being a bitch. Or are you just saying that when someone posts something that you agree with, no one is supposed to present any sort of opposing view? All threads are supposed to end when you say so?
No. You have cited that your concern is that you’re paying for them, thus, I have established that 5% is the absolute ceiling of people you’re “paying for”. Some portion of them are responsible but fell upon hard times, and some (likely miniscule to nonexistent, statistically) portion is actually irresponsible.
I have no particular concern for the budget, support tax increases in general, and think in fact that we should pay MORE to support the poor and less on, say, the bloaty and wasteful military. I do not think that welfare encourages any particular laziness or irresponsibility as implemented in the US now–and I think the amounts it pays are shamefully low. Your bleating about your tax dollars is the cold part of this thread.
Just one more example of your parasitism, along with eating up my social security contributions with your so-called “disability”–you’ve called me stupid because **you **can’t do simple math upthread, I have no qualms about calling you on your thousands of posts here.
That is what you choose to believe (what would statistics have to do with it?), that all these people “fall on hard times” thru absolutely no fault of their own. However, I have yet to see a sob story posted where there wasn’t a time when the parents chose to “go for it”, or didn’t feel they needed to wait or whatever. I have a feeling that the reality is that you are more tolerant of parents taking chances that might result in deep financial trouble than you would be with any other section of society. Or maybe not, maybe you simply have no trouble with people who take chances with their money and their lives.
Must be nice to have enough money to be unconcerned with the deficit or to worry about tax hikes. Nothing like being young and unaware of the realities of retirement.
I’m getting a bit tired of this particular attempt to ignore waste in one area in favor of another. Again, the military is not the subject here, and it really makes no sense that you think it’s a grand idea to throw more money at one part of our bloaty and wasteful government but not another.
Then why is it that we have generations of people living on the various government programs we have here?
Again, when you get close to retirement, unless you are wealthy, you will also be concerned with the amount of programs your tax dollars pay for that simply create more people that will need those programs. If things continue as they have for the last few decades, you will notice more and more people being less and less responsible - there may be another mortgage crisis for example. Or perhaps unemployment will reach new heights (lows?) because basic education has gotten so poor.
Perhaps after you’ve worked for decades, and maybe even work yourself into disability, you will begin to resent all these people that demand that someone else take care of them and/or bail them out of their problems, using your money. No matter how saintly you want to view yourself, if you want to have a half way decent life in retirement you are going to have to start thinking of yourself.
Uh, what? I am a parasite because I won’t do your work for you? When did I have trouble with simple math (don’t say when I failed to notice year vs month - that isn’t math). As for eating up “your” social security, it is not my fault that the government used mine for whatever it was when they plundered that fund. They forced me to buy into their retirement, I’m going to take it just like I’m going to take my pension when I qualify for it.
As for calling me on my “thousands” (HA!) posts here, I’ve called you and others on several and all of a sudden? Silence. Even in this post of yours right here, you call me “cold” for trying to protect my retirement, yet you just ignore my question about whether or not you are concerned with children living on what you call inadequate aid. As a matter of fact, you said “who the hell cares?”, yet you have the gall to call me cold. Ooookay. 
Prove your assertion, or pound sand.
Prove that they amount to any noticeable percentage of the welfare budget. I doubt it’s more than 1%, and I expect it to be 0.1%
Naw. You see, two things: One, I work for a living, and I make a hell of a lot of money, and most of my retirement contributions are tax free. I expect, barring bad luck, that I’ll be a multimillionaire just on my 401ks and stock investments well before I’m 50, and I won’t need to worry about it.
Two, I’m not only a decent human being, I’m also pragmatic. The only two possible situations for my retirement are “I’ll have more money than I know what to do with” or “I’ll have a run of bad luck, and require assistance through no fault of my own”. So why would I cut myself off at the knees by reducing the safety net available to me, when my tax burden is already astonishingly low?
I said “who the hell cares” regarding the absolute number of children on welfare, compared to percentage of children on welfare, in a discussion on the budget impact of same. If you want to twist that to ME being unconcerned about them, we’ll add “unable to parse standard English” to your list of idiocies.
Seriously, you crack me up. I mean that. I especially love the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either stupid or poor, that one cracks me up.
Get a damn job, lazyass. I don’t even believe you’re disabled–the way you talk, I’d be completely unsurprised to find you’re defrauding the government in a feeble attempt to “get back what’s mine”.
Which assertion is that? There was more than one in what you quoted.
Why is the percentage important? What is actually important is the affect of teaching people to live off of welfare or some other hand out, without ever becoming independent and self responsible. For example, do you not agree that living in poverty tends to lead to crime? What percentage of our tax dollar goes to police forces, jails, courts and prisons?
So then you have no idea what it is like to live poor, or from paycheck to paycheck, or on a fixed income, yet you think it’s OK to tell me that I cannot complain about wastes of our tax money?
If you have all of that retirement that you listed above, how in the world are you going to have enough bad luck that all of it would be gone and you would need to rely on government handouts?
Also, how in the world is your tax burden “astonishingly low”? Between income tax and property tax alone, we are paying between 20 - 25%. I do not consider that low, much less “astonishingly” so.
Also, I note that you insist that I pay out more taxes for something you believe in, yet you don’t mention any money other than taxes that you are paying out to support all these folks on welfare.
:rolleyes: You said who the hell cares after making up a number of children living on welfare. I would not be the only one looking at that thinking you meant who the hell cares about those eleventy billion kids on welfare.
I know you are stupid just by what I read here, I have no idea if you are rich or poor nor do I care.
Shrug. What you believe is not my problem. As for “getting back what’s mine”, I am getting less than what I would have if I’d waited another 10 years, and I will continue to get less even when I do reach usual retirement age. So try again on that one. You really should stop making statements about things you know nothing about.
Tho if you think it is that easy to defraud the feds, maybe you should rethink your stance that we should be sending them more money.
The percentage is important to judge the magnitude of the problem, relative to the gain and amount of effort required to solve it.
We spend a lot of tax dollars on police/jails/prisons due to, primarily, the poor drug laws and policies in this country.
I certainly agree that poverty tends to breed crime. I don’t agree that welfare breeds chronic poverty, though, and you have yet to produce a shred of data proving it.
Stunning reversal of your position–a minute ago I was too poor to understand why I should worry about my tax money.
Also, I grew up poor and frugal in a town full of broke-ass white people in the middle of Appalachia. =P
401ks are stock/bond funds. I don’t pretend that’s risk-free. I don’t pretend that banks will never fail. I don’t pretend that the feds will continue to offer FDIC to cover me in that event.
My total tax burden is pretty near that. I find it low, and I’d happily go up to somewhere around 40% in aggregate given the proper mix of government programs (discussion for another thread).
That’s because we’re talking about taxes, not charitable contributions.
Seems like you are. Anyone else misunderstand me?
crickets
Conversely, I know you’re stupid, lazy, and greedy. 3-1, me.
Nope, your point was perfectly clear. There are undoubtedly a tiny percentage of people using government assistance in the US who fit into curlcoats ‘welfare mammas with 17 kids living in a filthy house’ concept, but the fact that they make up such a small percentage certainly *does *matter. No matter what kind of program you’re talking about there are going to be a few shitty people who just game the system. The existence of those people does not prove that the program is not generally beneficial to the population. Curlcoat seems to think that either the system has to be perfect, or it should just be scrapped entirely (I’m guessing scrapped is her preference). Nothing is perfect.
Incidentally, what makes you think that current unemployment is due to poor basic education?
Which would be valid if people on welfare were in a vacuum, not affecting anything else.
Poor drug laws and policies?
Except when I did.
As I said before, I don’t know where you got that idea.
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
That is just three of the taxes we pay.
You can donate any time - why aren’t you?
So, you would much rather force everyone else to contribute to your cause than just lead the way? I’m beginning to think that business about having all that money was lies too.
You don’t know any of those things. All you know is that you don’t agree with some beliefs that I have, so you take the childish route and call me names.
I would rather the government take care of things it is appropriate for the government to take care of, like the general welfare of the citizenry. My charitable contributions are not the subject of discussion. My income wasn’t brought up until you made the (idiotic) assertion that I’d somehow care more about taxation if I were wealthy.
You sling the insults, I sling the insults. Pretending that proves something is laughable.
So you don’t actually care all that much about these poor pitiful welfare kids. At least not enough to get any closer than paying whatever taxes the government takes and says they are going to use to support those po’ people. And certainly not enough to do anything other than throw money at them.
Must have touched a nerve.
No matter how many times you repeat this, it isn’t going to come true.
I insult only those who insult me. Even then, I try to stay close to what appears to be the truth.
In other words, you got nothing.
You seem awfully fixated on trying to prove I’m a bad person based on the fact I won’t tell you how much I give to charity. That’s one hell of a debate tactic, there, I’m sure you’re convincing all the cool kids at the douchebag society.