Someone needs to be held accountable...

[Spikesoldier]

provide diminishing returns for each child after two.

economies of scale exists for having multiple children in a larger household. the welfare doesnt need to go up in a linear fashion.

 

[ShawnD1]

The answer is not more gov't intervention, it's less. Cut welfare down to a six month limit, once per 3 years.

But what if the economy gets really really bad? That actually has happened before. During the great depression and the current great recession, lots of people are having a damn hard time getting jobs.


Bignate's idea seems the most realistic. Government money is there if you need it, but you need to do a bunch of dull busy work that sucks. Sort of like the work at McDonalds. Wipe this counter even though the counter is cleaner than the drug addicts who come in the door. Mop the floor even though it's already clean. Wash your hands after using the bathroom even though I obviously did not shit on my hands this time. Pointless busy work.

 

[dud]

If you can't look into the mirror clearly go ahead and blame someone else.

 

[drebo]

This is why anyone on welfare should be artificially castrated for the duration of the time they are on welfare.

This is fucking stupid and our society should not reward this kind of behavior.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Maybe government daycare, and mandatory work would help. That won't fix anything NOW. The cost will be similar to just paying money, but it might save money in FUTURE by not making kids a profit mechanism.

I agree, my entire premise is that you can't really fix the 'now'. Even an educated, skilled, motivated individual would be hard pressed to support 15 children on the pay from an honest job.

Mom's punishment is the loss of a lot of her 'free choice', with the benefit of being able to raise her children in an environment that does not promote the same outcome for the next generation.

Sadly, you can't fix stupid; but there are lots of stupid people who at least manage to pay their own bills.

 

[Specop 007]

So here's the real question:

There are 15 children here, who are growing up in an environment of poverty, handouts, and will never see their mother (who sadly is their #1 role model) do a single day of paid work.

I agree that she is responsible for her own plight, and by any reasonable standard, it would be fine to cut her loose.

What do you suppose the long-term result of this would be? (Most of) the children won't actually starve, so at some point they will be adults, capable of being productive, or of continuing the family business.

So what's the best solution?

Why does there have to be a solution at all?? That implies a problem. This surely isnt my problem and it surely isnt your problem. This is her problem. Let her find the solution. Our problem? We end up paying for it. Thats the problem we need to solve.

Why do we have to pay for her problems? Kick her off welfare and wish her the best of luck.

 

[BudAshes]

Why does there have to be a solution at all?? That implies a problem. This surely isnt my problem and it surely isnt your problem. This is her problem. Let her find the solution. Our problem? We end up paying for it. Thats the problem we need to solve.

Why do we have to pay for her problems? Kick her off welfare and wish her the best of luck.

It costs more to not have welfare than it does to have welfare. That's why it exists. When people are starving they become desperate, then they become dangerous.

 

[waggy]

lol

i posted this already and got flamed for it. Why should i pay for a lazy paice of shit that is only good for popping kids? fuck her.

i would say take her off welfare but that would hurt the kids

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why does there have to be a solution at all?? That implies a problem. This surely isnt my problem and it surely isnt your problem. This is her problem. Let her find the solution. Our problem? We end up paying for it. Thats the problem we need to solve.

Why do we have to pay for her problems? Kick her off welfare and wish her the best of luck.

Sure.

So kick them off welfare; in fact cancel it altogether.

Then when they start breaking into your home, and mugging you on the street, so they don't starve, and you finally catch them and can prove it, execute them.

Your home will still have been broken into, and you will still have been mugged.

 

[Specop 007]

It costs more to not have welfare than it does to have welfare. That's why it exists. When people are starving they become desperate, then they become dangerous.

Oh, so its simple bribery?

Sorry, that excuse doesnt fly. But the great point is eventually they will be kicked off welfare. The system is unsupportable. Whether it happens today or next decade, it is NOT sustainable. As Greece can testify to.

 

[DAGTA]

But what if the economy gets really really bad? That actually has happened before. During the great depression and the current great recession, lots of people are having a damn hard time getting jobs.


Bignate's idea seems the most realistic. Government money is there if you need it, but you need to do a bunch of dull busy work that sucks. Sort of like the work at McDonalds. Wipe this counter even though the counter is cleaner than the drug addicts who come in the door. Mop the floor even though it's already clean. Wash your hands after using the bathroom even though I obviously did not shit on my hands this time. Pointless busy work.

Even in this economy, there are jobs for people willing to work. They aren't great jobs, but they are jobs. I'd much rather give welfare to the person working a job that doesn't pay enough to cover all bills than to the person not working.

Obviously it's not all black/white, but I think many of the people without jobs are 'holding out for a management position' like Cousin Eddie.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Even in this economy, there are jobs for people willing to work. They aren't great jobs, but they are jobs. I'd much rather give welfare to the person working a job that doesn't pay enough to cover all bills than to the person not working.

Obviously it's not all black/white, but I think many of the people without jobs are 'holding out for a management position' like Cousin Eddie.

I agree sort-of.

Just daycare for one kid can potentially make 'having a job' pay less than welfare. In fact, daycare can easily cost more than the total pay for a crappy job.

Increase the number of kids, and it becomes absolute that daycare will cost more than work pays. So staying home with the kids is often the 'highest paying' job under the current system.

We can all bitch and moan all we like about this, but it's reality. My guess is that as the economy continues to shift away from manufacturing, with lower-value service jobs filling the void, this problem is going to get worse, not better.

So either we find a comprehensive way to attack the problem head-on, or we end up fucked.

 

[Lyfer]

Poor kids.

 

[Specop 007]

Sure.

So kick them off welfare; in fact cancel it altogether.

Then when they start breaking into your home, and mugging you on the street, so they don't starve, and you finally catch them and can prove it, execute them.

Your home will still have been broken into, and you will still have been mugged.

That is some infantile logic. You want to pay poor people to not commit crime. I suppose your next plan is to actually pay them more money so they commit less crime? Thats how we solve crime, just pay them more money. Makes complete sense to me.

They may decide to break into homes or start mugging people but what you have described is a self correcting problem, and a mistake a poor person would make once should they try that at my home.

Now if you live in New York or California, I cant help you.

 

[Specop 007]

Even in this economy, there are jobs for people willing to work. They aren't great jobs, but they are jobs. I'd much rather give welfare to the person working a job that doesn't pay enough to cover all bills than to the person not working.

Obviously it's not all black/white, but I think many of the people without jobs are 'holding out for a management position' like Cousin Eddie.

If you have a pulse, can speak mostly proper english, have a clean background and a desire to work you can land a job making 75k starting Monday, tomorrow.

There are industries out there that need bodies so badly its silly. Instead we have the Entitlement generation like this lady and the Facebook generation that sits in OWS camps bitching about how unfair life is.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That is some infantile logic. You want to pay poor people to not commit crime. I suppose your next plan is to actually pay them more money so they commit less crime? Thats how we solve crime, just pay them more money. Makes complete sense to me.

They may decide to break into homes or start mugging people but what you have described is a self correcting problem, and a mistake a poor person would make once should they try that at my home.

Now if you live in New York or California, I cant help you.

Sigh...

If you want to simply deny the problem, that's fine.

I don't want to give money to people because they have children they can't support. I don't particularly enjoy paying taxes, and I would prefer that the taxes I pay build roads, plow them, pick up my trash, and I suppose educate (other people's) children.

However, the people who end up burglarized, robbed, hurt, and even dead, will still be in that condition, regardless of whether you manage to heroically shoot the criminal the day you encounter them, which isn't nearly as certain as you might think. For one thing, I'd imagine you aren't always home.

So no, I don't want to pay poor people not to commit crime. I do however recognize that the more, and poorer poor there are, the more petty property crime and muggings we should expect. Personally I think that's an issue worth discussing, and a problem worth solving.

Since your solution is 'cut off all support and make the problem as bad as possible, so I can shoot at it', I'm going to conclude that you don't have anything productive to add, at least from my perspective.

 

[kyrax12]

If you have a pulse, can speak mostly proper english, have a clean background and a desire to work you can land a job making 75k starting Monday, tomorrow.

There are industries out there that need bodies so badly its silly. Instead we have the Entitlement generation like this lady and the Facebook generation that sits in OWS camps bitching about how unfair life is.

name some of those industries please.

 

[Specop 007]

Sigh...

If you want to simply deny the problem, that's fine.

I don't want to give money to people because they have children they can't support. I don't particularly enjoy paying taxes, and I would prefer that the taxes I pay build roads, plow them, pick up my trash, and I suppose educate (other people's) children.

However, the people who end up burglarized, robbed, hurt, and even dead, will still be in that condition, regardless of whether you manage to heroically shoot the criminal the day you encounter them, which isn't nearly as certain as you might think. For one thing, I'd imagine you aren't always home.

So no, I don't want to pay poor people not to commit crime. I do however recognize that the more, and poorer poor there are, the more petty property crime and muggings we should expect. Personally I think that's an issue worth discussing, and a problem worth solving.

Since your solution is 'cut off all support and make the problem as bad as possible, so I can shoot at it', I'm going to conclude that you don't have anything productive to add, at least from my perspective.

Well that problem too has already been solved.

Its called "White Flight". Also known as "Dont live in the fucking ghetto".

ETA:

You are right, we wont see eye to eye. I'll never agree to paying someone not to commit a crime. Ever. At that point whats the difference if they just commit the fucking crime to begin with? Either way I'm out something.

 

[Ichinisan]

lol

i posted this already and got flamed for it. Why should i pay for a lazy paice of shit that is only good for popping kids? fuck her.

i would say take her off welfare but that would hurt the kids

Maybe it was the presentation?

 

[Specop 007]

name some of those industries please.

Oil patch in the Midwest. They need drivers, drillers and all kinds of others both in the drilling as well as support industry.

Oh, its work. I mean work. You dont get to sit at a desk, you dont get to spend lunch on Facebook and you will be away from home a good portion of the time. But, its good money.

I briefly thought about applying as a drill hand. Starting wage was 29 an hour 12 hour shifts 7 days a week 2 on 2 off OT after 40 hours.

ETA;

here you go

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/11/15/boom-fuels-oil-field-talent-search/

 

[3chordcharlie]

Well that problem too has already been solved.

Its called "White Flight". Also known as "Dont live in the fucking ghetto".

LOL

 

[Specop 007]

LOL

I never said it was a good solution, and not very PC but hey.

If you dont want to be a victim of crime, dont live near the criminals.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I never said it was a good solution, and not very PC but hey.

If you dont want to be a victim of crime, dont live near the criminals.

With no real solution, it's the best any individual can do, perhaps.

It's pretty sad, and the opposite of a long-term solution though.

It's amazing what encouraging inner-city development (particularly things like sports stadiums, theaters, shopping centers) can do in terms of providing accessible jobs, and human traffic that both work to reduce crime.

 

[Lifted]

/firstworldproblems

 

[William Gaatjes]

But what if the economy gets really really bad? That actually has happened before. During the great depression and the current great recession, lots of people are having a damn hard time getting jobs.


Bignate's idea seems the most realistic. Government money is there if you need it, but you need to do a bunch of dull busy work that sucks. Sort of like the work at McDonalds. Wipe this counter even though the counter is cleaner than the drug addicts who come in the door. Mop the floor even though it's already clean. Wash your hands after using the bathroom even though I obviously did not shit on my hands this time. Pointless busy work.

This i agree on too. When people can sit at home all they, do not provide free money. That a mother needs to take care of her children ok... Then let her be helped by others who sit at home all day in return for that social security check. Then when her children are old enough that she can work, she can start to return the favor. This way, people cherish social benefits and become more social themselves. Keep the streets clean, that sort of chores. When people feel they are needed, they also feel some dignity and a healthy amount of self respect and pride. And that is what is going wrong in the world. To much people take to much for granted. And it seems only economic disasters makes them think. Although the ignorant and the foolish who think they are entitled no matter what happens in the world are the biggest problem.

My opinion is that if one wants to live, one shall work for it. But one shall never be facing work alone. It must be a joint effort.