What happens when food stamps are a day late?

[JSt0rm]

So what does eating more of the same shit accomplish?

Not much

Yup, and I have no incentive to work. I don't make a lot of money, around $30K/yr which isn't great, but there are a lot of people who work hard for that kind of cash. Me, I have all day every day to do whatever I want, it's pretty damn nice. I could go out and get a job and make a lot more money, but life is short. I value time over money right now, especially since Uncle Sugar is paying me to stay home. Now I just need to figure out how to get on welfare once the unemployment runs out... LMAO

Redunkulus.

I feel bad you are only worth 30k a year when you do decide to wrk but your economic activity puts you in the group of "let the world burn, I don't care". Those people are dangerous and should not be making any policy chices or even have an opinion of value on the economy because our economy doesn't and never will service these people and they feel left out.

cleaning guns and skinning deer will never be worth a lot in the modern world. I'm sorry.

 

[werepossum]

Probably not. However, offering BC and condoms free is a good start and reforming the system to prevent people from intentionally having children to increase their benefits would do wonders.

Obama's idea to force health insurance companies to cover BC 100% is stupid because it doesn't do shit for the group of people we don't want having children: those without private health insurance suckling on the government teet.

I agree with both points. Free birth control for women on welfare is spending more to help prevent some women from have additional children on welfare, which is bad for them and bad for us taxpayers. Forcing insurance companies to provide "free" birth control merely attempts to get something for nothing. That "free" birth control must be added to the cost of the policies.

No, there's data, you just didn't scroll down far enough. Here, I'll help you out, bottom of the first link I provided:



Conclusion: 1 in 10 welfare families with 3 or more children means the "incentive" to have more kids that JS80 and other conservatards ascribe to the welfare system is plain bullshit, totally statistically insignificant.

Click the links. The first two don't work at all. The last is to the general link to the census site on poverty; you might find something there to bolster your case, but you'd really have to work on it. But either way, assuming the artist/activist is both honest and correct, that number means simply that the incentive to have more children for more benefits is limited to not more than 10% of the welfare population. That number is not insignificant, and is further skewed by the number of children being raised by grand parents (who often are not able and/or willing to have more children) as well as the people who are on welfare for a comparatively short amount of time, such as mothers who go on welfare until they can complete a one year or higher degree and find a job paying enough to afford child care. Remember that the hard core welfare families are not a huge majority of welfare recipients, and quite possibly are a fairly small minority.

 

[JSt0rm]

I agree with both points. Free birth control for women on welfare is spending more to help prevent some women from have additional children on welfare, which is bad for them and bad for us taxpayers. Forcing insurance companies to provide "free" birth control merely attempts to get something for nothing. That "free" birth control must be added to the cost of the policies.

Because free child birthing is less expensive then generic pills mass produced. You are a winner!

 

[SparkyJJO]

Forced murder? Forced sterilizations? Equating the unborn child with a parasite?

You guys are sick D:

 

[HendrixFan]

Not only will they get free childcare, medicare and medicaid, but they will also qualify for the earned income credit for $8,000.00!

The EIC maximum is $5600, for three children. Any additional children will not affect the max.

 

[BoberFett]

I feel bad you are only worth 30k a year when you do decide to wrk but your economic activity puts you in the group of "let the world burn, I don't care". Those people are dangerous and should not be making any policy chices or even have an opinion of value on the economy because our economy doesn't and never will service these people and they feel left out.

Are you retarded? I make $30K without getting out of bed. That's what the government is paying me NOT to work. I make more than triple that when I do work. But my time is more valuable to me than money. That's time to spend with family, reading, writing music. I'm sorry your time has such low value to you that you are willing to sell it so easily. You're kind of a whore, how sad.

 

[First]

Click the links. The first two don't work at all. The last is to the general link to the census site on poverty; you might find something there to bolster your case, but you'd really have to work on it.

Yikes dude.

But either way, assuming the artist/activist is both honest and correct, that number means simply that the incentive to have more children for more benefits is limited to not more than 10% of the welfare population. That number is not insignificant, and is further skewed by the number of children being raised by grand parents (who often are not able and/or willing to have more children) as well as the people who are on welfare for a comparatively short amount of time, such as mothers who go on welfare until they can complete a one year or higher degree and find a job paying enough to afford child care.

Who says those numbers don't count grandparents and why would your later point about mothers on welfare for a short period of time be relevant in a discussion about mothers sucking off the welfare tit by having more children, which last I checked a child takes roughly 9 months to be born. I'm not sure in what universe 10% is large especially when there's no evidence that the 3+ child families exist due to the incentive to have those children for welfare dollars. More likely mothers want kids, or they're accidents due to lack of responsibility/birth control. Mothers actively saying they can make a buck off a child are few and far between and the numbers are quite solid here.

Remember that the hard core welfare families are not a huge majority of welfare recipients, and quite possibly are a fairly small minority.

Um, yeah, I know.

 

[bfdd]

Not much



Redunkulus.

I feel bad you are only worth 30k a year when you do decide to wrk but your economic activity puts you in the group of "let the world burn, I don't care". Those people are dangerous and should not be making any policy chices or even have an opinion of value on the economy because our economy doesn't and never will service these people and they feel left out.

cleaning guns and skinning deer will never be worth a lot in the modern world. I'm sorry.

I make about 50k a year and I'm part of the "let the world burn, I don't give a fuck" group. If people aren't willing to work together(smartly) and get things done that should be done RIGHT, then they should be left to burn. You don't fucking learn that the stove is hot having your mom slap your hand away every time. You learn by touching the hot stove and burning your fucking hand. Without the ability to fail, things will always be on the verge of failing.

 

[First]

Are you retarded? I make $30K without getting out of bed. That's what the government is paying me NOT to work. I make more than triple that when I do work. But my time is more valuable to me than money. That's time to spend with family, reading, writing music. I'm sorry your time has such low value to you that you are willing to sell it so easily. You're kind of a whore, how sad.

Wait, if unemployment gives you the time you wouldn't otherwise have then why would you rail against its existence?

 

[bfdd]

Wait, if unemployment gives you the time you wouldn't otherwise have then why would you rail against its existence?

because it's an exploitable system, that's why? should be obvious by BFs posts that he's simply gaming the system just to prove you can.

 

[First]

because it's an exploitable system, that's why? should be obvious by BFs posts that he's simply gaming the system just to prove you can.

It's nowhere near "obvious" someone would willingly take $60K less per year to "prove a point". Don't be tarded.

 

[Ausm]

Yup, and I have no incentive to work. I don't make a lot of money, around $30K/yr which isn't great, but there are a lot of people who work hard for that kind of cash. Me, I have all day every day to do whatever I want, it's pretty damn nice. I could go out and get a job and make a lot more money, but life is short. I value time over money right now, especially since Uncle Sugar is paying me to stay home. Now I just need to figure out how to get on welfare once the unemployment runs out... LMAO

D:

 

[Ausm]

Wait, if unemployment gives you the time you wouldn't otherwise have then why would you rail against its existence?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you retarded? I make $30K without getting out of bed. That's what the government is paying me NOT to work. I make more than triple that when I do work. But my time is more valuable to me than money. That's time to spend with family, reading, writing music. I'm sorry your time has such low value to you that you are willing to sell it so easily. You're kind of a whore, how sad.

Lmao. Ok dude.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's nowhere near "obvious" someone would willingly take $60K less per year to "prove a point". Don't be tarded.

Yeah I call shens. Nobody would destroy a 90k a year career (because at 90k we at careers only level in the Midwest) to prove that unemployment is bad.

 

[werepossum]

Because free child birthing is less expensive then generic pills mass produced. You are a winner!

What? There is no part of my position where I make that claim.

Women on welfare tend to make poor decisions. These women would be likely to not purchase birth control, either intentionally or non-intentionally. I SUPPORT free birth control for women on welfare because lifestyler or not, I don't want women on welfare having more children. I'm not comfortable forcing them to not have more children, but I am comfortable with paying a little extra to make it easier and more convenient for women on welfare to avoid having more children if they so desire, in the knowledge that this is best for me as a taxpayer and also in line with their own desires to not have more children, at least while on welfare.

Women paying their own health insurance (either directly as or as part of their benefit package) tend to make better decisions and to have more money. They are less likely to not use birth control if it is not furninished free, if only because they will bear the cost of birthing and raising any child that results. The cost of their health insurance is also born by them, not by me. I have no dog in the fight. However, I am smart enough to recognize that forcing their health insurance companies to provide "free" birth control also forces up the cost of their policies; there are no free lunches. This has nothing to do with the comparative cost of birthing a child, it is merely a fact that health insurance companies must make a small profit or at worst, as for non-profits like BCBS, break even.

 

[momeNt]

I wish my work sucked so much the government paid me to not work.

I kid, I actually am really happy BoberFett is paid to not work, I enjoy his commentary.

 

[bfdd]

It's nowhere near "obvious" someone would willingly take $60K less per year to "prove a point". Don't be tarded.

uh... never quit a job out of principle before? I took a huge pay cut, benefits cut and retirement cut quitting my union job. but i quit out of principle, fuck those guys and their money. they can shove it for all i care.

 

[First]

Yeah I call shens. Nobody would destroy a 90k a year career (because at 90k we at careers only level in the Midwest) to prove that unemployment is bad.

Yeah, I mean if Bober wants to spend time with family, read and all sorts of other personal stuff I totally get that. Life IS short and frankly some people aren't meant for a life of constant work and little to no play. I was just curious how that makes unemployment a bad thing, unless he's saying people shouldn't have *any* (as in $0) incentive not to work so they will get back to work...which only makes sense if people are incentivized through (1/3rd of previous salary) unemployment checks to make $60K less per yr, which 99.9% of Americans wouldn't do.

 

[BoberFett]

Wait, if unemployment gives you the time you wouldn't otherwise have then why would you rail against its existence?

Because it's a fucked up system that encourages unproductivity. See: BoberFett

 

[First]

uh... never quit a job out of principle before? I took a huge pay cut, benefits cut and retirement cut quitting my union job. but i quit out of principle, fuck those guys and their money. they can shove it for all i care.

How much did you give up?

 

[BoberFett]

Lmao. Ok dude.

Great response. Would recommend. :thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah I call shens. Nobody would destroy a 90k a year career (because at 90k we at careers only level in the Midwest) to prove that unemployment is bad.

Why not? As I've explained in the past, I was laid off from a position as the IT Director at a small to mid size manufacturing company. I've been enjoying this extended vacation since last March. It has nothing to do with proving a point and more to do with enjoying life. You silly worker bees and your "careers", you have such a skewed perspective of what's important in life.

 

[Doppel]

So boberfett you made $90k/year and either were laid off but as it is now you PREFER to be making $30k on unemployment than take another $90k job if it requires 40 hours/week from you? If that's the case I guess I have to say you must be very good with money. If I had a 66% reduction in income I'd be trying quite hard to resolve that.

Aren't you concerned that your skills will sour; you'll have a hard time whenever the money does run out?

 

[bfdd]

How much did you give up?

24 bucks an hour, at least 10 hrs of OT a week, TWO retirement plans(pension & annuity, 30 yrs in I would have been collecting closer to 200k a year) and amazing health insurance. why? because they billed me out at a much higher pay scale(basically charging what they charged for foremen) and refused to pay me for the responsibility they were giving me. i really just didn't give a fuck, i still don't.