Welfare

[nehalem256]

1) Good idea, lets give the Feds more power to take children away from their parents.

Good idea, lets let people that think having more children when they cannot even feed the ones they have be parents.

2) Good idea, lets give the Feds power to force people to get abortions. Nevermind the fact that more than half the nation thinks abortion is murder.

Completely disingenuous argument given that the people that argue for more welfare don't think abortion is murder.

3) Welfare's primary goal is making sure the child doesn't suffer for the behavior of the parent. Nutrition is extremely important to early childhood development. Cutting welfare will result in even more developmentally challenged kids.

Another disingenuous argument given that the people that support welfare also have no issue with abortion. The primary purpose of welfare is to bailout single moms.

 

[LightPattern]

Reminds me of a Daniel Quinn thesis: keep 'em hungry and they'll have fewer babies.

 

[dank69]

Good idea, lets let people that think having more children when they cannot even feed the ones they have be parents.



Completely disingenuous argument given that the people that argue for more welfare don't think abortion is murder.



Another disingenuous argument given that the people that support welfare also have no issue with abortion. The primary purpose of welfare is to bailout single moms.

It's both funny and sad that you think you have successfully rebutted my post.

 

[sm625]

The primary purpose of welfare is to placate the electorate. It is insurance against rebellion. Really, its just simple bribery. People collect the money and shut up when they should be out in the streets protesting, forming a movement that actually gets rid of this scum. And it worked. The scum is so entrenched that a bottle of Drano the size of lake St Clair couldnt wash it away.

 

[nehalem256]

It's both funny and sad that you think you have successfully rebutted my post.

I think what is really sad is that left-wing beliefs on welfare are only "defensible" by invoking pro-life beliefs

Makes you wonder what would happen if liberals ever succeeding in banishing them huh

 

[bignateyk]

So by not forcing you are indicatin that there is another option where they can do none of the above?


I'm jut curious why this issue bothers you so much? Why does a women who is receiving government hep, who then gets pregnant, concern you so much?

Nobody is forcing them to take welfare in the first place. Why are flaming liberals so against any form of personal responsibility. Note: I'm a democrat leaning independent, so I'm not some right wing looney.

Why wouldn't welfare abuse and fraud bother me? It should bother everyone. It's sad that it doesn't bother you. Why should government money come with no strings attached?

I'm not against welfare. I think any first world country needs it. I just think people need incentives to make better decisions instead of being rewarded for making stupid decisions like they are now.

There are plenty of other problems in our country that need solved too, like corporate welfare, but this thread isn't about them. We can solve more than one problem at a time.

 

[nehalem256]

Why wouldn't welfare abuse and fraud bother me? It should bother everyone. It's sad that it doesn't bother you. Why should government money come with no strings attached?

Because the left doesn't view welfare as a way to help people who are temporarily "down on their luck" or who made a "life-oppsie".

Welfare is a way to enable left-wing values that are inconsistent with reality. See my thread(http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2351785&highlight=) from 2 days ago where a living-wage for a single mother with 2 kids is $26/hr. Even in the liberals most circle-jerkish fantasy minimum wage isn't going to be anywhere near that. Which means that the only way they can enable their values is through welfare.

 

[dank69]

I think what is really sad is that left-wing beliefs on welfare are only "defensible" by invoking pro-life beliefs

Makes you wonder what would happen if liberals ever succeeding in banishing them huh

I think what is really sad is that you can't admit that the first statement stands even without the second. The second wasn't added for justification, but merely to point out the hypocrisy of the conservative mind. What is really, really sad is that even after this explanation, you still don't understand.

 

[dank69]

Nobody is forcing them to take welfare in the first place. Why are flaming liberals so against any form of personal responsibility. Note: I'm a democrat leaning independent, so I'm not some right wing looney.

Why wouldn't welfare abuse and fraud bother me? It should bother everyone. It's sad that it doesn't bother you. Why should government money come with no strings attached?

I'm not against welfare. I think any first world country needs it. I just think people need incentives to make better decisions instead of being rewarded for making stupid decisions like they are now.

There are plenty of other problems in our country that need solved too, like corporate welfare, but this thread isn't about them. We can solve more than one problem at a time.

I already pointed out to you that it isn't actually a problem worth even considering, and that any possible solution to the "problem" will make things worse for you.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I think people who get pregnant while receiving welfare or other kinds of government assistance should be given a choice:

1) Give the baby up for adoption
2) Have an abortion
3) Keep the baby, but give up rights to ever receive welfare again

Thoughts?

So, who is going to monitor these folks to see if they're pregnant? Spend money to have them to go see a doctor monthly?

And if I'm able to get off gov't assistance several months after giving my child away by adoption, can I get him/here back?

Love these ideas for bigger government and big brother.

 

[Veliko]

Nobody is forcing them to take welfare in the first place. Why are flaming liberals so against any form of personal responsibility. Note: I'm a democrat leaning independent, so I'm not some right wing looney.

Why wouldn't welfare abuse and fraud bother me? It should bother everyone. It's sad that it doesn't bother you. Why should government money come with no strings attached?

I'm not against welfare. I think any first world country needs it. I just think people need incentives to make better decisions instead of being rewarded for making stupid decisions like they are now.

There are plenty of other problems in our country that need solved too, like corporate welfare, but this thread isn't about them. We can solve more than one problem at a time.

The moment anyone brings up the 'personal responsibility' nonsense, it's time to do a large facepalm.

Welfare abuse and fraud isn't something that I'm happy about but it's such a comparatively minor issue that it simply doesn't warrant getting upset about.

The outrage and the amount of media attention it gets is completely out of proportion to the size of the issue.

 

[bignateyk]

Oh, excuse me for not realizing you are trying to be serious with this thread. It's an easy mistake to make, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when their post is filled with ignorance.

Here is your serious answer as to why you are retarded:

1) Good idea, lets give the Feds more power to take children away from their parents.

Intentionally becoming pregnant while unable to provide for the child is child abuse. Abused children should be taken from their parents.

2) Good idea, lets give the Feds power to force people to get abortions. Nevermind the fact that more than half the nation thinks abortion is murder.

Didn't say anything about forcing abortions

3) Welfare's primary goal is making sure the child doesn't suffer for the behavior of the parent. Nutrition is extremely important to early childhood development. Cutting welfare will result in even more developmentally challenged kids.

Intentionally getting pregnant while unable to provide for a child is child abuse, and the child should be given to parents who will provide a better life for the child.

Please take some time to reflect on why you are so easily manipulated into believing that policies that are bad for you are actually good for you.

How would this policy be bad for me? It would reduce welfare abuse, poverty, and provide better lives for the children.

Responses in bold.

 

[Veliko]

Intentionally becoming pregnant while unable to provide for the child is child abuse. Abused children should be taken from their parents.

At first I was like.

And then I :biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

The moment anyone brings up the 'personal responsibility' nonsense, it's time to do a large facepalm.

Welfare abuse and fraud isn't something that I'm happy about but it's such a comparatively minor issue that it simply doesn't warrant getting upset about.

The outrage and the amount of media attention it gets is completely out of proportion to the size of the issue.

Its only a "minor issue" because much of what is actual abuse you refuse to define as abuse.

For example, http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

You can have 3 children with 3 different fathers (2 of whom are in prison) and NPR will use you as an example of why we should have a broad safety net.

Clearly the left does not think women like her are abusing the social safety net, but I think most rational people would agree she is. She isn't "temporarily down on her luck", she didn't make a "life-oppsie" and then learn from her mistake. She repeatedly made horrible life choices and the left expects us to bail her out.

 

[Veliko]

nehalem256 slagging off women again? Shock! Horror!

As I said, the issue is a minor one and as far as I'm aware there haven't been any recessions and economic depressions that were caused by women claiming a few meagre benefits for their children, unlike the bankers who managed to make themselves rich at everyone else's expense in the years leading up to 2008.

 

[nehalem256]

nehalem256 slagging off women again? Shock! Horror!

As I said, the issue is a minor one and as far as I'm aware there haven't been any recessions and economic depressions that were caused by women claiming a few meagre benefits for their children, unlike the bankers who managed to make themselves rich at everyone else's expense in the years leading up to 2008.

Linking to articles on NPR that profile women on welfare is "slagging off women" now?

Sounds to me like you are just butt-hurt that you are trying to support an unsupportable position.

And don't think I let bankers off easy:

And I would be fully in favor of putting the worst of the mortgage/bank executives up against the wall and shooting them. And then caning (Singapore style) the less egregious offenders. If you demand to be compensated like a god (as bankers have) then you should be held to a higher standard than mere mortal men

 

[Veliko]

Another non-sequitar reply from the resident misogynist.

My position, for the third time, is that welfare abuse is not as costly as the abuse at the upper end of the chain.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[nehalem256]

Another non-sequitar reply from the resident misogynist.

My position, for the third time, is that welfare abuse is not as costly as the abuse at the upper end of the chain.

Do you agree or disagree?

What abuse are you talking about?

You want to compare the cost of TARP to the cost of welfare over say the span of a decade?

Or maybe you want to solely blame bankers for making loans to people they defaulted on. Because you know its not like the people who took out loans they couldn't afford were in anyway responsible for that.

Again I have twice before invited people who want to discuss corporate welfare to make a thread where they can point out what forms of corporate welfare they think should be cut. Perhaps you would like to do so?

 

[Veliko]

So now you're moving the goalposts to include welfare as a whole, rather than welfare abuse, and then using it to make a disingenuous comparison.

The people who took out the loans share a little of the blame, but the blame is so heavily weighted towards the bankers that it's utterly pointless to even bring it up.

 

[dank69]

Responses in bold.

Intentionally? How does the government determine intent? Through the court system. How much do you think that will cost? More. A lot more. This is how it hurts you. You are seeking to implement policies that hurt you.

Your 3rd response does not in any way, shape or form address my third point.

 

[Incorruptible]

nehalem256 slagging off women again? Shock! Horror!

As I said, the issue is a minor one and as far as I'm aware there haven't been any recessions and economic depressions that were caused by women claiming a few meagre benefits for their children, unlike the bankers who managed to make themselves rich at everyone else's expense in the years leading up to 2008.

More stupidity from liberals. The government caused the recession. And there should be more strict requirements for welfare. There is abuse and it must stop.

 

[nehalem256]

So now you're moving the goalposts to include welfare as a whole, rather than welfare abuse, and then using it to make a disingenuous comparison.

There is no goalpost moving. The contention is that a large portion of welfare spending is being spent on welfare abuse.

It is just that liberals refuse to classify a large portion of abuse as abuse, but instead use it as reasons to argue for more welfare spending. See the NPR article.

The people who took out the loans share a little of the blame, but the blame is so heavily weighted towards the bankers that it's utterly pointless to even bring it up.

So individuals, having you know full knowledge of their financial situation, aren't really to blame for taking out mortgages they cannot afford?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why should government money come with no strings attached?

Where is this government money that comes with no strings attached? I want some of it.

 

[Veliko]

There is no goalpost moving. The contention is that a large portion of welfare spending is being spent on welfare abuse.

You are flip-flopping between one and the other. Earlier you said:

You want to compare the cost of TARP to the cost of welfare over say the span of a decade?

So are you talking about welfare abuse or welfare?

So individuals, having you know full knowledge of their financial situation, aren't really to blame for taking out mortgages they cannot afford?

As I already said, those people share a portion of the blame, but the banks shoulder the vast majority of it.

The banks have centuries of experience and expertise behind them, are in control of immense wealth and power, and are the ones who have the final say as to whether a loan is granted or not.

If the banks are utterly powerless every time a drunken tramp wants £500k in order to pay for a new bit of string for his dog, what is the point of them?

 

[nehalem256]

You are flip-flopping between one and the other. Earlier you said:



So are you talking about welfare abuse or welfare?

Now lets think about this. If welfare abuse constitutes a large amount of welfare spending and welfare spending is large than wouldn't spending on welfare abuse also be large?

As I already said, those people share a portion of the blame, but the banks shoulder the vast majority of it.

Sounds like you think people are too stupid too figure out if they are capable of paying a mortgage. And yet you want to let these idiots decided whether they are capable of being parents?

Seems like you are making the OP point. People are too stupid to decide whether to have children by themselves and need the government to protect them from themselves.