# These town hall meetings have been interesting **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 23, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549 "2017-02-23T13:53:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/121 "2017-02-24T19:41:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What does genetic testing of poor people have to do with anything? How else will he know that he has a strong possibility to plan for? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/122 "2017-02-24T19:43:00Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > At least temporarily would be a good idea. You all are supposed to be the ones who care so much about children - why are you OK with them being born into poverty and probably stuck there for the rest of their lives? You all? Jews, men, short people, Democrats? BTW, I loathe children. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/123 "2017-02-24T19:50:23Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Perhaps he lost his job and doesn’t get social security? Why would he not get SS? > [@](#): > > An explanation of why health insurance doesn’t work as a free market good - a fact understood by pretty much every economist alive - would be lost on you, since you’re very dull-witted. I could try, but you won’t get the concepts of moral hazard, information asymmetry, and market failure. Well, since my point isn’t about whether or not it works as a free market good, which of us is it that is very dull-witted? Trotting out the same tired claims that have nothing to do with the subject doesn’t make you look too smart. > [@](#): > > Indeed, Americans somehow pay more tax dollars towards health care than do the people in other developed countries, and even did so before the ACA, just because there’s no universal health insurance process unless you’re really old. I take it you have forgotten about Medicaid. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > How else will he know that he has a strong possibility to plan for? See my previous post. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > You all? Jews, men, short people, Democrats? > BTW, I loathe children. Ah. So you don’t have a problem with them being born into poverty probable live long dependency. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/124 "2017-02-24T19:58:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > At least temporarily would be a good idea. You all are supposed to be the ones who care so much about children - why are you OK with them being born into poverty and probably stuck there for the rest of their lives? I’m not, but I’m not naive enough to think that I can control how 350+ million people behave. Children _will_ be born into poverty. No amount of admonishing and shaming from you will stop that. The choice we have to make as a society is what do we do for those kids. Babies have no say in who their parents are, or the circumstances they are born into, but every child born here is in fact an American citizen and deserves to be treated as such and not punished for the sins of their parents. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Nowdays we can require them to be temporarily sterilized - way to jump to the worst possible scenario. Also, I am addressing public attitudes, like you all. Nothing wrong in your minds with people who cannot afford them having children, eh? Nothing wrong with those kids growing up thinking being on welfare is normal? I’m going to turn this around on you: Nothing wrong with those kids dying in the street due to their parents choices? As I said, babies do not get to decide who their parents are, but we can decide whether we give these kids a fighting chance at life or just abandon them to lives of poverty and crime, if they can even survive childhood. > [@curlcoat](#): > > And your example of empathy is so good? No, my experience isn’t universal, that is why I keep giving you all examples of irresponsibility. My example of empathy is IMO good or else I wouldn’t feel that way. I have yet to see any example of empathy from you. Just poor shaming and feeling superior to anyone that has been given a raw deal from life. > [@curlcoat](#): > > And that is the attitude that I think needs to be addressed and fixed. Yes, shit happens but the more responsible and proactive you are, the less likely it is that you’ll get shit on. By using the phrase “less likely” you are admitting that it’s possible that no matter your preparation, life can kick your ass and leave you in need of help. These things do happen to the most responsible people. I think a society that considers itself enlightened should have a safety net for these people. It’s also impossible to make sure that nobody ever uses the safety net that doesn’t deserve it. I’m ok with this. I’d rather feed an undeserving person than let a deserving one starve to death. That’s the empathy thing I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/125 "2017-02-24T19:59:28Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It’s amazing that just because people don’t agree with my opinions, they pretend to believe that Social Security is welfare. I made no distinction just which taxpayer teat you were sucking off of. Fact is, you are comfortable with _your_ chunk of the social safety net, but willing to cut holes in others’. If you truly need some portion of the money _I_ contribute, then go with god. If you don’t need it, or are just rationalizing your need for it, then you are freeloading. Own it. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/126 "2017-02-24T20:07:44Z")
Republicans should probably attempt to mentally reconcile their anger over poor people having children they can’t afford and their staunch resistance to women’s reproductive rights and, of all things, **birth control**. Don’t want to pay for extra kids? Pay for the damned birth control. Preventative care is always cheaper than managing the results. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/127 "2017-02-24T20:19:57Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Children _will_ be born into poverty. No amount of admonishing and shaming from you will stop that. The choice we have to make as a society is what do we do for those kids. Babies have no say in who their parents are, or the circumstances they are born into, but every child born here is in fact an American citizen and deserves to be treated as such and not punished for the sins of their parents. I generally do not cheer lead, and I hate kids, but Rah! Rah! Go team! ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/128 "2017-02-24T20:34:18Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Republicans should probably attempt to mentally reconcile their anger over poor people having children they can’t afford and their staunch resistance to women’s reproductive rights and, of all things, **birth control**. > > Don’t want to pay for extra kids? Pay for the damned birth control. Preventative care is always cheaper than managing the results. But the Republicans want to close down Planned Parenthood. And, if schools offer Sex Education, want Abstinence Only… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/129 "2017-02-24T20:57:30Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And that is the attitude that I think needs to be addressed and fixed. Yes, shit happens but the more responsible and proactive you are, the less likely it is that you’ll get shit on. You keep on with the notion that the poor are undeserving. Part of this new(ish) branch of Christianity that good people prosper and bad people suffer. If you are someone without health insurance then you are, ipso facto, undeserving of help because it is completely their fault. If they were more industrious they’d have the things they need. This, of course, flies in smack in the face of reality. In 2009 62 percent of all bankruptices were due to medical bills and of that 62 percent three-quarters of them had health insurance. ([SOURCE](https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/?_r=0)) And perhaps you are a diligent person who worked hard and then you get laid off. Consider coal miners. They are really worried the ACA will go away because it covers black lung. Without it they have nothing. > [@](#): > > One man who worked in the mines for 35 years told CNN’s Miguel Marquez: > > ``` > “When they eliminate the Obamacare, they may just eliminate all of the black lung program. It may all be gone. Don’t matter how many years you got.” > > ``` > > SOURCE: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/27/these-coal-country-voters-backed-trump-now-theyre-worried-about-losing-obamacare/?utm\_term=.2f4b0beba218](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/27/these-coal-country-voters-backed-trump-now-theyre-worried-about-losing-obamacare/?utm_term=.2f4b0beba218) Do those people deserve to be kicked to the curb as good-for-nothing sponges on society? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/130 "2017-02-24T21:19:04Z")
We have had this discussion in my family. It is irritating to see people “get something for nothing”, but it is a very small part of the budget and our tax money that pays for it. That won’t be much comfort, but it might make you feel somewhat better about it. What was it that President Clinton did about food stamps that irritated some of the beneficiaries? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/131 "2017-02-24T21:19:58Z")
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/132 "2017-02-24T21:33:41Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I’m not, but I’m not naive enough to think that I can control how 350+ million people behave. Children _will_ be born into poverty. No amount of admonishing and shaming from you will stop that. The choice we have to make as a society is what do we do for those kids. Babies have no say in who their parents are, or the circumstances they are born into, but every child born here is in fact an American citizen and deserves to be treated as such and not punished for the sins of their parents. Yes, I know, it’s all about people’s right to have as many kids as they want and the disconnect between that and being concerned about those kids welfare. Which is why I don’t get how people can be all for anyone and everyone having kids _and_ claiming to want all those kids to have a good life. Yes, children will be born into poverty, but it seems to me that if society stopped celebrating that, maybe fewer would be. > [@](#): > > I’m going to turn this around on you: Nothing wrong with those kids dying in the street due to their parents choices? As I said, babies do not get to decide who their parents are, but we can decide whether we give these kids a fighting chance at life or just abandon them to lives of poverty and crime, if they can even survive childhood. However, you aren’t doing that. > [@](#): > > My example of empathy is IMO good or else I wouldn’t feel that way. I have yet to see any example of empathy from you. Just poor shaming and feeling superior to anyone that has been given a raw deal from life. I’m not sure how empathic you are, but assuming the worst of me isn’t a good quality in a person. I have never shamed anyone just because they are poor nor have I said anything about people who have been given a raw deal. > [@](#): > > By using the phrase “less likely” you are admitting that it’s possible that no matter your preparation, life can kick your ass and leave you in need of help. These things do happen to the most responsible people. I think a society that considers itself enlightened should have a safety net for these people. Exactly, which is what I have said all along. Perhaps if you didn’t ass-ume so many things and actually looked at what I write, you’d know that. > [@](#): > > It’s also impossible to make sure that nobody ever uses the safety net that doesn’t deserve it. I’m ok with this. I’d rather feed an undeserving person than let a deserving one starve to death. That’s the empathy thing I was talking about. Yes, you are talking about the worst possible scenario instead of what I am talking about. Are you doing this on purpoe? > [@SingleMalt](#): > > I made no distinction just which taxpayer teat you were sucking off of. Fact is, you are comfortable with _your_ chunk of the social safety net, but willing to cut holes in others’. If you truly need some portion of the money _I_ contribute, then go with god. If you don’t need it, or are just rationalizing your need for it, then you are freeloading. > > Own it. You actually see no difference between taking welfare and taking Social Security? > [@Chimera](#): > > Republicans should probably attempt to mentally reconcile their anger over poor people having children they can’t afford and their staunch resistance to women’s reproductive rights and, of all things, **birth control**. > > Don’t want to pay for extra kids? Pay for the damned birth control. Preventative care is always cheaper than managing the results. Seriously. Of course, I don’t think that those who want to stick their noses into reproductive rights are actually concerned about the welfare of the resulting babies. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You keep on with the notion that the poor are undeserving. Part of this new(ish) branch of Christianity that good people prosper and bad people suffer. If you are someone without health insurance then you are, ipso facto, undeserving of help because it is completely their fault. If they were more industrious they’d have the things they need. Uh, I have no idea WRT any branch of Christianity. > [@](#): > > In 2009 62 percent of all bankruptices were due to medical bills and of that 62 percent three-quarters of them had health insurance. ([SOURCE](https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/?_r=0)) And? You are assuming that every last one of those folks were responsible and proactive? Besides, it isn’t like bankruptcy is the issue it used to be since people do it these days just to get out of paying bills. > [@](#): > > And perhaps you are a diligent person who worked hard and then you get laid off. Consider coal miners. They are really worried the ACA will go away because it covers black lung. Without it they have nothing. Their union didn’t get them health insurance? > [@](#): > > Do those people deserve to be kicked to the curb as good-for-nothing sponges on society? No, only those who are actually good for nothing sponges. The problem here is that you are assuming that a vast majority of the people who are on ACA or some sort of welfare got there thru no fault of their own. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/133 "2017-02-24T21:34:45Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And that is the attitude that I think needs to be addressed and fixed. Yes, shit happens but the more responsible and proactive you are, the less likely it is that you’ll get shit on. But it still happens. Disaster can strike anyone. And it’s to the State’s advantage to help you pick yourself up so you can again be a productive member of society. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/134 "2017-02-24T21:41:44Z")
But **curlcoat** doesn’t care about society. **curlcoat** cares only for **curlcoat**. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/135 "2017-02-24T21:45:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You actually see no difference between taking welfare and taking Social Security? Do you need it? I mean really, really need it? If not, then no, no difference. You’re freeloading. The social safety net is comprised of a whole bunch of different programs, offering assistance to different people with different needs. I am quite content that some of my payroll deductions are earmarked for those who need it. But Social Security is not means tested, is it? So, congratulations. You are, as I said, sucking off the government teat without a true need. Undeserving, as you might say. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/136 "2017-02-24T22:13:47Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, only those who are actually good for nothing sponges. The problem here is that you are assuming that a vast majority of the people who are on ACA or some sort of welfare got there thru no fault of their own. How do you identify the good-for-nothing sponges? You are assuming people on welfare are happy to be there sponging off the state. This is not true for the most part. Some image of the mythical “welfare queen” who drive a Cadillac and has flat screen tvs and goofs off all day on your dollar is dancing through your head. TANF (welfare) has a lifetime limit of five years that you can collect. For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in 2016 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $923 per month in Alaska. So, you can see, no one is living large on this and they would much rather have a good paying job. But you are in luck. The layabouts are actually few and far between (doubtless there are some). In [1999 - 2001 or so unemployment was at about 4%](http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/unemployment_men_women.gif). That is considered full employment (full employment is never zero due to [frictional unemployment](http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/frictional-unemployment.html) such as time off between jobs). So, most everyone who wanted to be employed was employed. The [Fed is saying we are now, once again, almost at Full Employment](http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/janet-yellen-federal-reserve-full-us-employment/). ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/137 "2017-02-24T22:24:37Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Yes, I know, it’s all about people’s right to have as many kids as they want and the disconnect between that and being concerned about those kids welfare. Which is why I don’t get how people can be all for anyone and everyone having kids _and_ claiming to want all those kids to have a good life. > > Yes, children will be born into poverty, but it seems to me that if society stopped celebrating that, maybe fewer would be. Who the hell is celebrating anything? It’s called being realistic about the world we live in and figuring out the best way to deal with that reality. Saying “If those damn poors would just stop having kids, society would be better off” is not a policy position. It’s a whine. > [@curlcoat](#): > > However, you aren’t doing that. Democrats generally promote policies to help take care of this, and I usually vote in that direction, so yes I am doing my part to help with that. What are you doing to help with the situation? Besides whining about it I mean. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Yes, you are talking about the worst possible scenario instead of what I am talking about. Are you doing this on purpoe? It’s called taking a position to its logical conclusion, its a rhetorical technique used to point out the flaws in an opposing argument. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/138 "2017-02-24T22:28:32Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I generally do not cheer lead, and I hate kids, but Rah! Rah! Go team! Aw shucks, thanks. It would be nice if this was self evident and didn’t even need to be said, but sadly that isn’t the case. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/139 "2017-02-24T23:20:19Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Moving to single payer would put me out of business. Worth it. I’d be out on the street, too. I love my job, but that’s a trade I’ll make and gladly. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549/140 "2017-02-24T23:36:20Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But it still happens. Disaster can strike anyone. And it’s to the State’s advantage to help you pick yourself up so you can again be a productive member of society. I have never said that I have anything against safety nets, my issue is those who plan on using them because they would rather spend their money on things other than insurance for example. > [@SingleMalt](#): > > Do you need it? I mean really, really need it? If not, then no, no difference. You’re freeloading. Really? So all of the people who are forced to pay into SS all their working lives should not take it when eligible if they don’t “really, really need it?” > [@](#): > > The social safety net is comprised of a whole bunch of different programs, offering assistance to different people with different needs. I am quite content that some of my payroll deductions are earmarked for those who need it. But Social Security is not means tested, is it? No pension plan is. That is where you are going wrong, not realizing that SS is a government forced pension plan. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How do you identify the good-for-nothing sponges? I doubt I’ve said anything about identifying them. > [@](#): > > You are assuming people on welfare are happy to be there sponging off the state. This is not true for the most part. Prove it. > [@](#): > > Some image of the mythical “welfare queen” who drive a Cadillac and has flat screen tvs and goofs off all day on your dollar is dancing through your head. Nope. > [@](#): > > TANF (welfare) has a lifetime limit of five years that you can collect. For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in 2016 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $923 per month in Alaska. So, you can see, no one is living large on this and they would much rather have a good paying job. Never said anyone was living large, but you are assuming they are capable of getting a good paying job. > [@](#): > > But you are in luck. The layabouts are actually few and far between (doubtless there are some). In [1999 - 2001 or so unemployment was at about 4%](http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/unemployment_men_women.gif). That is considered full employment (full employment is never zero due to [frictional unemployment](http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/frictional-unemployment.html) such as time off between jobs). So, most everyone who wanted to be employed was employed. The [Fed is saying we are now, once again, almost at Full Employment](http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/janet-yellen-federal-reserve-full-us-employment/). How many of those employed people are also receiving some sort of welfare? The country should look to [California](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html) as an example of what happens when welfare is handed out willy nilly > [@Airbeck](#): > > Who the hell is celebrating anything? It’s called being realistic about the world we live in and figuring out the best way to deal with that reality. So you consider allowing this to go on is the best way to deal with it? Ignore the central issue and continue to treat the symptoms? > [@](#): > > Saying “If those damn poors would just stop having kids, society would be better off” is not a policy position. It’s a whine. Good thing no one has said that. > [@](#): > > Democrats generally promote policies to help take care of this, and I usually vote in that direction, so yes I am doing my part to help with that. What are you doing to help with the situation? Besides whining about it I mean. Uh, no, Democrats generally promote policies to address the symptoms and make people even more dependent on handouts. There isn’t a thing I can do about it given the overwhelming entitlement attitude in this country. > [@](#): > > It’s called taking a position to its logical conclusion, its a rhetorical technique used to point out the flaws in an opposing argument. The worst possible scenario is not the logical conclusion. You are also doing your best to insist that I am saying things that I am not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-town-hall-meetings-have-been-interesting/780549.md?page=8)