Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62

Thread: What has gone wrong with this country!

  1. #41
    Shanobi
    Guest

    Knee Jerk Tokens

    You mention welfare mommies with mulitple children. Yes, there are plenty of them on welfare. And yes, they probably come form a culture of welfare. But the baby factory excuse doesn't fly anymore. If you have a baby 10 months after you go on welfare your benefit does not increase. you must sign an agreement that if you do have a baby 10 months after you receive money than that baby's share of the benefit would have to be retrieved from a 3rd party, like Catholic Charities. Instead of getting an extra $100 for the spawn you will have to settle for $100 worth of services from a 3rd party...No cash. And it's not just single mothers with 5 kids by 5 different guys. What about the 45 year old homemaker and mother of 4 who's never worked since she had the kids 18 years ago and her husband just walked out on her? She has to start from scratch with no skills and no where to turn. That could so easily be your mom. Should she suffer? WHat about the 30 yr old shop worker who lost both of his feet and it wasn't work related so he can't draw worker's comp? He'll get his Social Security disability but that won't pay the mortgage and the daycare.....Folks, there are many faces of welfare. It's only the tokens that you are shown and conditioned to hate.

  2. #42
    Asperger's Poster Child Tonio's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,283
    Would you believe that I never heard of Section 8 until I read this thread? Maybe that's because I don't know anyone who receives public assistance. I know that probably makes me sound like some wealthy person who never associates with the commoners. I'm certainly not wealthy, and neither are my family and friends.

    I hope threads like this can encourage a rational debate about welfare. That was almost impossible in the 1960s and 1970s, when a LOT of politicians used racially inflammatory terms like "welfare queens." We don't hear too much of that anymore, much to my relief. Of course people have passionate opinions about welfare. It's our tax money that's involved.

  3. #43
    Chairman of the Board Frank's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Hoboken, pally
    Posts
    745
    "If you have a baby 10 months after you go on welfare your benefit does not increase."

    I don't understand the problem here. Aside from the fact that there's a signed agreement to that effect - this approach ensures the baby factory situation does not perpetuate. Isn't this what everyone wants?

    I think everyone understands that welfare has been massively abused in the past. Some folks here - myself included - actually know a few who have. My brother is disabled and cannot walk or feel anything in his feet, but he understands he will have to eventually find some other form of work. As much anguish as he is going through - he's on massive pain medication - he agrees with this point of view expressed here.

    I wouldn't presume too much that people are "conditioned to hate". Demonizing those who disagree with you, and attempting to characterize what motivates them isn't going to convince anyone that your opinion is a better one. You'd have more luck elaborating on your argument, than making presumpions about others.

  4. #44
    Board Mommy vraiblonde's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Off the grid
    Posts
    117,928
    Blog Entries
    2
    Here's my radical thought - sure to make some of you hit the roof:

    I think that if a woman is receiving public assistance, she should be required to be on birth control. Not a pill that she can conveniently forget but those little tubes that the doc inserts in your arm, good for six months or something (what are those things called?). That way she can sleep around as much as she wants and we don't have to pay for her little "mistakes".

    I think that when you rely on the taxpayers to fund your existance, you've turned yourself into a dependent and shown that you're not responsible enough to run your own life.

    Shanobi, tons of disabled people go to work every day. In this day and age there is a paying job for everyone, even if you are handicapped.
    "Too much agreement kills a chat."
    ~Eldridge Cleaver

  5. #45
    Oldtimer Ken King's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Up the hill and down the holler
    Posts
    14,765
    Vraiblonde,

    Weren't they called Norplant or something like that? I agree, since they won't shut their legs they should have the egg supply turned off. They obviously can't remember to take the pills and this might help them achieve employment instead of reliance on us "good hearted" taxpayers.

  6. #46
    Shanobi
    Guest

    Humitarians

    At times the topic of welfare reminds me of these certain "humanitarians" who always gripe, "Why are we sending all our money overseas to feed all these hungry people?! We have tons of hungry people in this country that are being left behind."...Then when the issue of welfare comes up it's these same people who would rather see these hungry people starve than allocate a fraction of their tax dollars to help them out. What do these humanitarians really want? Does this make sense....And, by the way, I don't believe that my opinion is more correct but I do feel that I may have a more informed opinion on this matter as it is a first hand opinion rather than a Birch Society newletter opinion. Yes, there are a lot of welfare cheats, many of them are turned away after some interviewing and fact finding. But this is a rational system and it's understandable how some would rather sit home and collect welfare than work a job that only makes slightly more. That's where education and work programs come into play. tHe culture of welfare is coming to a close for many people, especially those who are able to work.

  7. #47
    Asperger's Poster Child Tonio's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,283
    I think that if a woman is receiving public assistance, she should be required to be on birth control. Not a pill that she can conveniently forget but those little tubes that the doc inserts in your arm, good for six months or something (what are those things called?). That way she can sleep around as much as she wants and we don't have to pay for her little "mistakes".
    When Norplant first came on the market, a controversial editorial in a Philadelphia paper urged policymakers to "think about" exactly what Vrai is suggesting.

    I can understand why some people would hit the roof. The Norplant idea raises some ethical questions. True, the woman can simply refuse to go on public assistance rather than get Norplant, so it's not really coercion.

    I think it would be easier to fix the welfare system instead to discourage any freeloaders.

  8. #48
    Shanobi
    Guest

    Agreed

    I agree with Tonio that Norplant is a bit heavy handed. It sounds worse than the One Child Policy. Government has not right mandating birth rates even if it is in attempts to slow the breeding rate of the lower class. What would the Right to Lifers say about this? I think both sides would argue against that idea....It is a valid idea though, but I agree that it would be easier to change the system like Tonio said.

  9. #49
    Chairman of the Board Frank's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Hoboken, pally
    Posts
    745
    "And, by the way, I don't believe that my opinion is more correct but I do feel that I may have a more informed opinion on this matter as it is a first hand opinion rather than a Birch Society newletter opinion. "

    Still see this as more ad hominem. Your opponents must be misinformed, have no first-hand exposure, and must be a bunch of Birch society snobs. Further, the classic failing in argument - "if you understood the situation, you'd agree with me; since you don't, your opinion must originate from malice".

    I've got two siblings on public support. It DOES affect me - and my fortune - personally. Add them onto the volumes of persons on public suuport I've either lived next to or personally assisted - sometimes by graciously taking them into my home. And I think continued support of most of them did them great harm. For both of my siblings - they need a working solution - not money. Money just delays the inevitable.

    As someone pointed out - fix the system. Just giving people money isn't going to reach a workable solution. What my brother needs is a job where he can earn money without having to move his body hardly at all. Getting money just reminds him that he is physically "useless", at least in his mind. The other sibling just needs a good spanking, because Uncle Sam has been assisting a fairly healthy person for WAY too long.

    There's an old saying "If you rob Peter to pay Paul - you can always count on Paul's support". I think you can also bet that Peter isn't gonna be thrilled with it either.

  10. #50
    Board Mommy vraiblonde's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Off the grid
    Posts
    117,928
    Blog Entries
    2
    Tonio, I'm curious what "ethical questions" you think the Norplant idea raises.
    "Too much agreement kills a chat."
    ~Eldridge Cleaver

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |