Welfare

[Slew Foot]

10% of welfare checks are soaked in anthrax. Problem solved.

 

[nehalem256]

Free State funded contraception and abortion?
Don't ask how to put out the fire, prevent the fire.

Because its not like poor people ever CHOOSE to have babies...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I would support this bill if it included a provision that any company that is currently receiving any form of corporate welfare, tax incentives, subsidies, stimulus spending or other government funding can't pay any executive, director or employee more than $500,000 annually in total compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options / awards and/or other forms of compensation. $500,000 is plenty to live off, and companies that receive money from the government should not be using it to line the pockets of executives at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You put that in the bill and pay close attention to funding sources that come up in opposition. Worrying about individual welfare is nonsensical compared to the handouts that are given to some of the largest corporations in the world. If you're really concerned about the government giving money to greedy people who shouldn't get it, start with the people getting millions/billions, not thousands.

 

[HomerJS]

If we are going down this road all women with IQs below a certain number must volunteer for sterlization or forgoe any welfare payments if they become pregnant.

Don't want to use the PI word.

 

[nehalem256]

I would support this bill if it included a provision that any company that is currently receiving any form of corporate welfare, tax incentives, subsidies, stimulus spending or other government funding can't pay any executive, director or employee more than $500,000 annually in total compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options / awards and/or other forms of compensation. $500,000 is plenty to live off, and companies that receive money from the government should not be using it to line the pockets of executives at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You put that in the bill and pay close attention to funding sources that come up in opposition. Worrying about individual welfare is nonsensical compared to the handouts that are given to some of the largest corporations in the world. If you're really concerned about the government giving money to greedy people who shouldn't get it, start with the people getting millions/billions, not thousands.

So why don't you start a thread with Jimzz where both of you can discuss your views on corporate welfare and specifically which ones you think should be eliminated and why...

 

[dank69]

So why don't you start a thread with Jimzz where both of you can discuss your views on corporate welfare and specifically which ones you think should be eliminated and why...

What fucked up world did you wake up in that made you think you are a mod now?

 

[bignateyk]

I would support this bill if it included a provision that any company that is currently receiving any form of corporate welfare, tax incentives, subsidies, stimulus spending or other government funding can't pay any executive, director or employee more than $500,000 annually in total compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options / awards and/or other forms of compensation. $500,000 is plenty to live off, and companies that receive money from the government should not be using it to line the pockets of executives at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You put that in the bill and pay close attention to funding sources that come up in opposition. Worrying about individual welfare is nonsensical compared to the handouts that are given to some of the largest corporations in the world. If you're really concerned about the government giving money to greedy people who shouldn't get it, start with the people getting millions/billions, not thousands.

Sounds fair.

 

[bignateyk]

If we are going down this road all women with IQs below a certain number must volunteer for sterlization or forgoe any welfare payments if they become pregnant.

Don't want to use the PI word.

Not the same thing at all. You can be dumb and still provide for your family without taking money from the government.

I'm also not suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. Why do people think that government handouts should come without any kind of stipulations? If you get food stamps you shouldn't be allowed to buy junk food. If you get welfare, you should be allowed to have more kids. If you get pregnant, it's your choice whether you want to keep getting welfare or you want to get rid of the baby.

 

[bignateyk]

A long wait and high cost is built in for any American adoption regardless of the number of children up for adoption.

Not through the foster system. All you need to do is put these infants in the foster system and they'll be gone in a matter of minutes.

 

[bignateyk]

Well at the very least, they should be provided access to free abortions. That being said, I'm not down with the government forcing people to have abortions.

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Simply putting a stipulation on receiving welfare. You can choose to have an abortion, give the child up for adoption, or keep the child and lose your welfare funding.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I would support this bill if it included a provision that any company that is currently receiving any form of corporate welfare, tax incentives, subsidies, stimulus spending or other government funding can't pay any executive, director or employee more than $500,000 annually in total compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options / awards and/or other forms of compensation.

I don't think tax incentives should count, at least not local or state incentives.

But otherwise sounds good.

 

[ivwshane]

So why don't you start a thread with Jimzz where both of you can discuss your views on corporate welfare and specifically which ones you think should be eliminated and why...

For the same reasons you and the other stupid, crazy, and fucked in the head posters don't go and start your own website with your own forum.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Simply putting a stipulation on receiving welfare. You can choose to have an abortion, give the child up for adoption, or keep the child and lose your welfare funding.

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?

 

[Moonbeam]

We live in a vicious and heartless society of competition that requires welfare to keep the few who win safe from the inevitability of a huge number of losers. The savagery of the wealthy against the middle class is transferred in turn to the poor who have nowhere else to turn for revenge than society in general. Welfare is the ransom the middle class is forced to pay to keep the rich safe when they venture out from their gated communities.

 

[nehalem256]

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?

Because then she needs more government help. D:

I mean really. Why is that in anyway difficult for you to understand?

Its like seeing a homeless man on the street, you invite him into your house feed him dinner and let him sleep on your couch and then he takes a giant dump in the middle of your living room.

By saying you don't have a problem with you are saying that obligations only run one way.

 

[ivwshane]

Because then she needs more government help. D:

I mean really. Why is that in anyway difficult for you to understand?

Its like seeing a homeless man on the street, you invite him into your house feed him dinner and let him sleep on your couch and then he takes a giant dump in the middle of your living room.

By saying you don't have a problem with you are saying that obligations only run one way.

I didn't realize you personally know every women who is using government help!

So your issue is that there aren't strict enough obligations? Why does that matter to you? And please spare me your fake personal scenarios to explain yourself, just answer the fucking question.

 

[nehalem256]

I didn't realize you personally know every women who is using government help!

Who said I did. We were specifically discussing the case of a woman who is receiving government help and then is making lifestyle choices that make it so she needs more help.

So your issue is that there aren't strict enough obligations? Why does that matter to you? And please spare me your fake personal scenarios to explain yourself, just answer the fucking question.

Where do you think the money for welfare comes from? HINT: Its you and me.

The issue is you want a world in which their are 2 classes of people. One which has obligations, and one which has entitlements.

Basically by having no issue with women on welfare popping out more bastard kids you are admitting that the purpose of welfare is not to help those "down on their luck" or people who "made a mistake", but rather to subsidize left-wing morality that is inconsistent with reality.

 

[ivwshane]

Who said I did. We were specifically discussing the case of a woman who is receiving government help and then is making lifestyle choices that make it so she needs more help.



Where do you think the money for welfare comes from? HINT: Its you and me.

The issue is you want a world in which their are 2 classes of people. One which has obligations, and one which has entitlements.

Basically by having no issue with women on welfare popping out more bastard kids you are admitting that the purpose of welfare is not to help those "down on their luck" or people who "made a mistake", but rather to subsidize left-wing morality that is inconsistent with reality.

So it's about the money that you have to pay then? If you didn't have a dime of your taxes going to pregnant women you would be ok with it?

 

[Incorruptible]

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?

Welfare shouldn't even exist but these people on welfare should be sterilized. They shouldn't be screwing around while on welfare. Ideally they should give up the baby for adoption. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed where too many women on welfare get pregnant and then cost the taxpayer even more money.

 

[ivwshane]

Welfare shouldn't even exist but these people on welfare should be sterilized. They shouldn't be screwing around while on welfare. Ideally they should give up the baby for adoption. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed where too many women on welfare get pregnant and then cost the taxpayer even more money.

LOL!!! That must be more of that personal freedom and constitutiony stuff you are always spouting about that you claim to defend!!

Btw, how is Canada's socialized health care treating you? It can't be that good as it appears that you are still mentally defective

 

[Incorruptible]

LOL!!! That must be more of that personal freedom and constitutiony stuff you are always spouting about that you claim to defend!!

Btw, how is Canada's socialized health care treating you? It can't be that good as it appears that you are still mentally defective

This is the third post where you're stalking me.

 

[Zodiark1593]

LOL!!! That must be more of that personal freedom and constitutiony stuff you are always spouting about that you claim to defend!!

Btw, how is Canada's socialized health care treating you? It can't be that good as it appears that you are still mentally defective

Ehh, last I checked, welfare isn't a constitutional right. I agree that people should not abuse it, and in fact, the system should encourage people to get off of welfare and strive for a better life.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ehh, last I checked, welfare isn't a constitutional right. I agree that people should not abuse it, and in fact, the system should encourage people to get off of welfare and strive for a better life.

Nah, You can't do that since it's better to have them on welfare and dependent on the government.

 

[Paratus]

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.
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.
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.

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.

Look to be small government and fiscally conservative you can only grow government and spend money to punish people.

Smaller amounts of money to help poor children is bad.
Massive prison police state is good.

 

[nehalem256]

So it's about the money that you have to pay then? If you didn't have a dime of your taxes going to pregnant women you would be ok with it?

Would you be okay with slavery assuming you personally didn't have to be a slave?

Because practically that is what we are talking about here. You think that hard-working moral individuals should be forced to work to support people that make immoral choices. Sounds like modern-day-slavery to me.

And there can be no question that is what you are arguing for. Because you cannot make any claims that people that are CHOOSING to have more kids, while on welfare, are just down on their luck or made an honest mistake.