Originally posted by Annoyed
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by SoulReaver View Posttbh if I'd been born to poor people I'd have resented them for bringing me into this ****sack worldIf Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Womble View PostDid you just declare that your reason for living is money?
anyway you can gimme your money if you don't value it
Originally posted by mad_gater View Postnah Reaver's just being...Reaver
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostAgain, where am I suggesting that any sort of control be placed upon people having kids that they can afford to take care of themselves?
No one is entitled to welfare or any other form of government assistance. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "right" to welfare. All I am saying is that if you want such assistance, which is optional, one of the conditions of that assistance is that you cannot have more kids which you cannot afford to take care of. If you can afford to feed, house, and otherwise care for them, have as many kids as you want. It's none of my business. Until you ask me to pay for it, then it becomes my business.
But making that choice for a family and telling them you can only have X kids is a stretch. You might as well pass out coupons for abortions and forget about banning 3rd trimester abortions too.
Cap spending based on the initial plan and if they fail to meet their goals they start loosing assistance. That's the point of that kind of welfare model. You fail to meet your goals, you start losing confidence in your ability to make it and thus lose your assistance. So if a family thinks they can do it with 5 kids, let them. What if they can? If they fail, they'll pay the consequences and risk loosing those kids.
Nobody's business but theirs, as they were not asking anyone else to pay for them.
for roughly 2 years, after injury forced me to retrain because I could no longer do the job I had been supporting myself with. And I've been working ever since.
This is a vastly different situation from the millions of people who don't even attempt to support themselves, making gaming the welfare system their career, and passing the "skill" to their children so we have generation after generation of professional leeches. I have never opposed giving someone a hand up on a temporary basis. It is the vast misuse of the social service system that I object to.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostI always did have my doubts about you.What species are you, anyway?
I was thinking in the extreme. Middle income and high income generally don't start thinking about children until they are much older, or not at all, which basically means the birth rate would steadily drop. Just look at the issues China is facing with their one-child-per-family policy - what a great idea was supposed to be, now shows them they have to deal with a low birth rate and a much larger older generation the younger can't provide for.
However, you're in luck -- apparently the birth rate in the US has been on the rise again the last 6 years.
Originally posted by aretood2 View Post[COLOR="#000080"]
Good luck convincing people that the government should keep people from "multiplying and filling the earth."
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostAll I'm saying is don't expect other people to pay for them.
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostI'm agnostic, so religion plays absolutely no part in any of my viewpoints.
Originally posted by garhkal View PostBut why? If i have the financial wherewithall to pay the entire house price up front cause of how much i have in savings, why can't i instead be allowed to Morgage it?
I guess, it wouldn't bring money into the bank otherwise.
Originally posted by garhkal View PostNow on #1, who pays for that temp agency?
At least, in Belgium they are. And we have several to choose from - more than enough actually.
Originally posted by SoulReaver View Posttbh if I'd been born to poor people I'd have resented them for bringing me into this ****sack world
I mean who are they to make that decision without my consent? :|
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostTo your good list of requirements I would add drug testing and a celibacy/or mandatory contraception requirement; if you test positive for drugs (including tobacco!) or become pregnant or father a child while on benefits, you forfeit your eligibility.
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostSpoiler:[COLOR="#000080"]
For a minute I thought I was reading 1984 when I read this paragraph. Didn't you just deny saying that you wanted government to tell people they couldn't have kids? How on God's good earth can you even consider calling yourself a libertarian? Forced celibacy/contraceptives are strictly unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection of the law. So a married couple can't have kids while a family of 4 could still receive assistance? Yeah, not ganna work.
My point is, you can escape poverty without having to worry about the number of kids you have. [...] I would rather place some sort of expense cap that takes into account maybe two kids? I would also hope that it wouldn't take more too long to leave the system.
It's one thing to say that a family shouldn't have 5 or 6 or 10 kids. But it's another to just role out having any kids. Then what about Catholics? You'll make them take contraceptives? Jews too? That's also a 1st amendment issue. You want to limit child birth, go to China. You'll be right at home.
Also, what to do about pregnant applicants? Force an abortion? [...] No limitations on families. Not now, not tomorrow, not even if we become Greece, not even if the country collapses and the states have no choice but to become independent countries, not ever. If this country can't handle having kids, then it might as well be done away with.Originally posted by Womble View PostDid you just declare that your reason for living is money?Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum
Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostCould I ask for specific numbers?
But http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3844 does give a few interesting numbers.
Welfare promotes intergenerational dependence -- 29.3 percent of recipients had parents who received welfare as children and a remarkable 7.5 percent are third-generation recipients. - See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph....CIDZhda9.dpuf
Comment
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostI was thinking in the extreme. Middle income and high income generally don't start thinking about children until they are much older, or not at all, which basically means the birth rate would steadily drop. Just look at the issues China is facing with their one-child-per-family policy - what a great idea was supposed to be, now shows them they have to deal with a low birth rate and a much larger older generation the younger can't provide for.
However, you're in luck -- apparently the birth rate in the US has been on the rise again the last 6 years.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostStatistics on this are few; it is, after all, illegal to commit welfare fraud.
But http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3844 does give a few interesting numbers.Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum
Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostStatistics on this are few; it is, after all, illegal to commit welfare fraud.
But http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3844 does give a few interesting numbers.
As to the content...Have you heard of generational poverty? The current system isn't designed to raise people out of poverty as much as what I described. Thus you need some changes. Keep in mind, generational poverty has been around since...poverty has. It's a function of economics really, otherwise everyone would be as rich as Bill Gates by now. The solution does not exist nor is it possible. The best we could do is make sure that they are just making enough to stave off starvation and allow for social mobility.
Anyway, if you study the link FH provided. You'd see some very interesting numbers. Furthermore other sources do show that slightly more than half the people that voted for Romney in 2012 also took welfare in 2013. While that number is slightly higher for Democrats (people who voted for Obama) it does show that a lot of people who take part of welfare are republicans and don't vote for democrats, such as yourself.
I also want to know what data you use to state that people on welfare automatically vote democrat because of welfare. The data I mentioned seems to bring serious doubts to that assertion.
http://aattp.org/ts-official-white-f...n-the-country/
It's also interesting note that red states (republicans) are the highest users of food stamps when compared to blue or swing states.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/
Texas has a higher participation rate of food stamp usage than your own state, New York. Mississippi has the highest (being Republican). Then there's Tennessee in second place. My state, PA (a swing state) is closer to the bottom. California, the bastion of liberalism and Democrat Heaven is in the bottom 10. That means only 9 other states have a lower participation rate than CALIFORNIA. The arguably most liberal state in the union is one of the most conservative when it comes to food stamps.
Anyway, actual welfare numbers I haven't run into them to link them. But it's interesting to know that poorer workers that get food stamps vote for republicans. The promise of welfare alone isn't enough to get their votes. They gravitate more towards the religious/conservative ideals of republicans. They do get, by large, different forms of government assistance as this article states
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...end-on-it.html
Though not exactly welfare as in "here's your monthly check" it still is assistance in reduced school meals, extra income tax breaks (you get way more money back each year than you should no matter how little Uncle Sam took throughout the year), and other subside programs that are part of the welfare state.
I guess strict "here's your check" welfare is mostly democrat (I have absolutely no data to back up the claim that they are mostly democrat) but if you look at the amount of Americans getting that, it's a mere 11.4 million http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that it hardly would be enough for democrats. Let's be generous to Annoyed's views and say 2/4rds are democrats, that other issues don't matter as much to them as their monthly check (and once again with absolutely no proof) then that means that around 7.6 million "here's your check" welfare users in the entire country of over 300 million are democrats. How many of them are democrats because of said welfare? Who knows, but even if it was as high as 50%, that'd be only 3.8 million in all 50 states including all the territories (That's Puerto Rico btw, where voting takes a different approach that doesn't impact whether or not Hillary becomes president at all).
As to the generation poverty issue that Annoyed's post pointed out...that's exactly why we need a system that has people set goals and tests them and monitors their progress instead of what exists now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Coco Pops View PostSo according to John Kerry if more people carried guns in movie theatres and churches we would all be a lot safer... OK? scratches head
also even if he did, I reckon it would've been under the assumption that movie goers go to the theater to watch movies not shoot people
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoulReaver View Posthe never said that
also even if he did, I reckon it would've been under the assumption that movie goers go to the theater to watch movies not shoot people
I apologize.... It wasn't John Kerry..
This is where this lame brain idea came from.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...outh-carolina/Go home aliens, go home!!!!
Comment
-
Regardless of who said it, they're right.
“Had somebody in that church had a gun, they probably would have been able to stop him,” host Steve Doocy remarked. “If somebody was there, they would have had the opportunity to pull out their weapon and take him out.”
One of his quotes is:
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
Comment
Comment