NationStates Jolt Archive

oops hit the caos button, anyway why i want to know america has better welfare then half the world and people still want more why?

who wouldn't want more?

who wouldn't want more?
Me for one i don't need it and any one can make money to live

EXACTLY! We all know how easy it is for a homeless person to get a good-paying job these days. Everyone wants to have a homeless guy working at their company!

EXACTLY! We all know how easy it is for a homeless person to get a good-paying job these days. Everyone wants to have a homeless guy working at their company!
it isn't easy but it is possible, when are they going to do soceity good if they just zap my money

EXACTLY! We all know how easy it is for a homeless person to get a good-paying job these days. Everyone wants to have a homeless guy working at their company!
anyway this isn't me whining about taxs (not if you don't make it that anyway) its about how people want MORE .

oops hit the caos button, anyway why i want to know america has better welfare then half the world and people still want more why?
I assume you're talking about corporate welfare, and the US probably now has the best system in the world for it. The reason corporations want more is because they're greedy pussies who are afraid to lose money on that traditional feature of enterprise - risk-taking.

All right I will partake of this one last time.

Am I for it's removal? Nope!
Is there abuse? Yes!

You always hear about the abuses and hear that people on it and their children go on it and then.....

You also get the conservative "You can always get a job..."

Problem is you can't. Salishe said his mom worked 3 jobs. She is a tough woman. Salishe: did your mom have support in watching you guys? Much easier if there is help in that area.

Fact is the rising poor are single mothers with no skills.

My Mom was one of those. She bought into the conserative image of the man works the woman is at home with the kids. Well my old man was well we won't go there. He disappeared. The system was not too supportive in those days so we got screwed.

My mom was on her own and the friends could only help out so much. We did the welfare thing while she went to school at night.

Did we continue it? Nope.

She finished school and went on to be an RN. Her career involves the dilvery of 40000 babies.

My sister graduated Berkeley and does theater work in New York.

I worked for the Feds for a few years. Now I do the WAN Engineer thing but would rather be doing Primatology full time.

I guess I was wrong. I got assistence one last time. I did unemployment for 6 weeks when I was down sized during the Camelot years under the great god Reagan.

To suggest it is a waste of time and only causes people to live in the system is BS!

Now I am done.....

oops hit the caos button, anyway why i want to know america has better welfare then half the world and people still want more why?

Europe has better welfare. America's welfare compared to its national budget and the amount it spends on defence is the reason people 'moan'.

Europe has better welfare. America's welfare compared to its national budget and the amount it spends on defence is the reason people 'moan'.
in comparassion but what about africa and all the other nations where every one is poor, futher in comparrison all i have to say is we still have a bigger welfare bucht then most europen countrys (Not togher)

Why are People whining about welfare IN AMERICA


Because on the whole US welfare sucks.

any one can make money to live

Even when there is no work? Or maybe you are convinced that the unemployed are universally lazy?

BTW How about those who can't work? Like the severely handicapped. Just leave them to rot?

in comparassion but what about africa and all the other nations where every one is poor, futher in comparrison all i have to say is we still have a bigger welfare bucht then most europen countrys (Not togher)

No, Most W. European countries have extensive welfare programmes that provide housing, money and other benefits.

Yes of course America has better social welfare than half the world, because more than half the world is made up of poor countries who probably don't have any social welfare at all.

In the league of countries which America can actually be legitimately compared to (such as Canada, most European countries), however, the US social welfare system is pretty bad. Now I don't think anyone is calling for a system so generous that people are encouraged not to work, but the genuinely needy in America fare badly in comparison to the needy in other industrialised countries.

No, Most W. European countries have extensive welfare programmes that provide housing, money and other benefits.

The Northern European (Scandinavian) countries have even more welfare and benefits for parents and such. Here in Holland the government seems to be doing it's best to bring the economy to a halt, though.

Becuase these people demanding more are socialist morons. Statists. Those in need of welfare are generally lazy disgusting people sorry but true. I am the other extreme belieiving there should be no welfare.

When you ever lose your job you'll be glad there is welfare.

Becuase these people demanding more are socialist morons. Statists. Those in need of welfare are generally lazy disgusting people sorry but true. I am the other extreme belieiving there should be no welfare.

Do you have evidence of this?...

Or maybe you just said that because you feel like playing the Trol?

When you ever lose your job you'll be glad there is welfare.
Thats the crux of it. Welfare isn't there for the wealthy or the middle classes. They're supposed to hate it. Its for the people who's jobs aren't so secure, and don't pay so much.

Becuase these people demanding more are socialist morons. Statists. Those in need of welfare are generally lazy disgusting people sorry but true. I am the other extreme belieiving there should be no welfare.

That is a flat out lie. I yelled my head off at someone in another thread whom I generally respect because they were trying to sell that line of crap that is a legacy from Reagan in the 80s and didn't even exist then. The majority of people receiving aid from welfare programs are employed, disabled or on various programs for a temporary time. There are no "Welfare Queens" but thank you so much Ronnie for introducing that nasty little piece of political mythology. Welfare programs don't just dole out the dollars. They include housing support, child care, health care, job retraining and help for people with mental and physical disabilities.

Becuase these people demanding more are socialist morons. Statists. Those in need of welfare are generally lazy disgusting people sorry but true. I am the other extreme belieiving there should be no welfare.

Interesting.

How old are you?

According to the CIA World Factbook, 12% of our population is below the poverty line (which is actually quite low, it should definately be raised and a new semi-poverty level created at 30000 USD, and they get some benefits) and only 6.2% Unemployment (When the figures were taken).

Now, that leaves 5.8% of people in poverty- almost half- who work. And that's not counting their families.

No, Most W. European countries have extensive welfare programmes that provide housing, money and other benefits.

Yes..what a great system...siphon the money from the working (and for the thin-skinned types I won't include the disabled)and give to the non-working, let the Government take care of me from cradle to grave..no thank you..I'd much rather do it myself.

Hum i wonder on those who shout at welfare are awear off the efforts goverments go to get people off it again?

welfare is thier to provide a saftey net to stop people starving to death -- shorley a worthy thing?

I have been lucky and never had to fall back on welfare, but i have freinds who have (please not these are people i went to university with, one of whom got a better degree than i did!).

Your not left alone to sit in your house and drink beer and watch crap TV (not that anyone has much choice on the crap TV front), if you don't show signs of seeking work they will reduce your befint/reduce the level. FOr example if your a graduate with a decent degree you can excpect a resonable job no?.

Well yes they will pay you welfare while you hunt for a while, but as time goes no the level of job they force you to accept goes down.

I cannot see the objection to welfare, i wonder how many people who object give to charity? or pay thier taxes?

Rember here in the UK with a public health system i pay for its upkeep, but almost never use it but its thier if i need it.

So to put it an emotive was as its critics do, would you like me to walk past you the street when your having a heart attack, rather than waste my valuable time on it.

emotive i agree, but true non the less

Welfare is wrong because it FORCES other to support other people. It should be an optional thing, why should MY money go to someone else. The only people that should be allowed to recieve welfare is disabled people because most of them cannot work I would not be against supporting some who cannot work, the rest of you work harder.

Welfare is wrong because it FORCES other to support other people. It should be an optional thing, why should MY money go to someone else. The only people that should be allowed to recieve welfare is disabled people because most of them cannot work I would not be against supporting some who cannot work, the rest of you work harder.

What a civilised outlook.

What a civilised outlook.

So you think I should want to go GIVE my money to someone else.

So you think I should want to go GIVE my money to someone else.

Finee you opt out of paying, does that intitle the goverment to opt out of ever suporting you?

I think welfare in America should be much much stricter. I live in a very very wealthy neighborhood, the 7th wealthiest city in the US, houses here no longer go for less than half a mil. But...they have a low income housing project, right in the middle of it. And I know people from there and from what I have heard, most live on welfare. Also, most do drugs and steal. My friend had 5 of his bikes stolen on 5 seperate occasions. They were in his shed, and locked. He lived across from it. People finally built a giant 10ft fence to seperate the projects from the rest of the neighborhood. The kids that live there are all walking around with mp3 players around their necks, wearing the most expensive FUBU clothing and nike shoes and talking about their xbox, ps2 and gamecubes that they have. They all drive nice expensive cars too yet....they live on welfare, and in the projects? What does this tell you? They are living on welfare when they dont need to be. they need to be much stricter I believe. They need to check in on the people every month, and check with their bosses. They also need to make the people turn in all of their receipts for anything they bought so the govt knows if these people should be living on welfare or not. I can go into a lot more detail but this post is long as is and I doubt anyone will read it.

Finee you opt out of paying, does that intitle the goverment to opt out of ever suporting you?

Yes, that would mean the government would not support me, but the goverment won't need to support me. They should make it optional to pay welfare.

Yes, that would mean the government would not support me, but the goverment won't need to support me. They should make it optional to pay welfare.

Or they should just kick you out of the country. Go live on an island somewhere or something.

yeah i vote we deport dumbasses

whoever thinks that all poor people are lazy bums that dont work gets deportedto russia

Or they should just kick you out of the country. Go live on an island somewhere or something.

So your saying I don't have a right to my own opinion.

yeah i vote we deport dumbasses

whoever thinks that all poor people are lazy bums that dont work gets deportedto russia

In the town I live in there are so many people on welfare that ALL they do is sit on there porch, there lawn is a wreck with rusted cars and boats with holes in them, and they smelled like goats. I am not saying that ALL poor people are lazy I am saying that alot of the people on welfare are lazy and don't work.

The only reason we need welfare is that, without it, the poor would never be able to get on their feet and/or survive. Does anyone actually believe that other people would be charitable enough to give money to the poor and needy voluntarily? It simply doesn't happen enough. Naturally, there will be a few people who take advantage of the system. Many of you make it sound like everyone does it, but the truth is why would you want to take advantage of the system? You won't live comfortably and be able to have the things you want and after two-years you have to go through the pain of having to sign up again or getting off of it.

Regardless, it's against Biblical principles to be against welfare.

Anyone who doesn't want to help the needy stay alive and sheltered SHOULD be deported. Preferably to Antarctica.

Welfare should offer everyone the base necessities that can't get what they need. Food, shelter, and clothing.

You want more than that? Get a job.

No jobs?

Work for Welfare. You want a welfare check, ok, fine, get sub-minimum wage jobs supplied by the government doing crap work no one wants to do. Pick up trash, shovel poop, stuff envelopes, whatever. But you get LESS than minimum wage, to motivate you to go out and get a REAL job.

And make it a PAYCHECK. None of that welfare stamps crap that they'll just sell for $500.

Me.

The kids that live there are all walking around with mp3 players around their necks, wearing the most expensive FUBU clothing and nike shoes and talking about their xbox, ps2 and gamecubes that they have. They all drive nice expensive cars too yet....they live on welfare, and in the projects? What does this tell you? They are living on welfare when they dont need to be.

it tells ME that they are selling drugs to the rich boys who live on the other side of the fence.

it tells ME that they are selling drugs to the rich boys who live on the other side of the fence.

Which is, unfortunately, the effect of what would happen -to many of the people on welfare who don't sell drugs- if welfare was ended. They'd sell drugs.

Pick up trash, shovel poop, stuff envelopes, whatever. But you get LESS than minimum wage, to motivate you to go out and get a REAL job.

Picking up trash, shoveling poop, and stuffing envelopes? Those jobs that you wouldn't want to lower yourself to do? Those ARE real jobs. People who do those kinds of jobs work harder than those who work in offices playing solitaire half the day.

The only reason we need welfare is that, without it, the poor would never be able to get on their feet and/or survive. Does anyone actually believe that other people would be charitable enough to give money to the poor and needy voluntarily? It simply doesn't happen enough. Naturally, there will be a few people who take advantage of the system. Many of you make it sound like everyone does it, but the truth is why would you want to take advantage of the system? You won't live comfortably and be able to have the things you want and after two-years you have to go through the pain of having to sign up again or getting off of it.

Regardless, it's against Biblical principles to be against welfare.

Anyone who doesn't want to help the needy stay alive and sheltered SHOULD be deported. Preferably to Antarctica.
Let's go back to a century ago, when welfare didn't exist. Arguably, welfare didn't need to exist. Women like Jane Hull weren't whining to the federal government to do something, but instead, she did it herself.
There were also the creation of mutual societies. Quite a few rich people knew the value of a well-off person, and made sure that each poor person received a check in privatly funded money. However, it was in the donor's best interests that the money went to self-sufficiency, rather than the dependency of today. In fact, the only reason why many were worse off then than now is because living standards were lower. What's seen as poverty in America today was seen as luxury to those of even thirty years ago.
It's time that such frivolous welfare programs like HUD and Social Security be reduced to the more useful programs like Medicaid and Head Start (although Medicaid is a state-funded initiative now. The local governments and charities must take over for welfare, but also make sure that their benevolent use of time and money goes to genuine self sufficiency. Hopefully, the more enterprising ones in society can profit off this, and bring jobs to poverty stricken areas, where many don't even feel the need to work. It'd be a great boon to our economy, and it'll ultimatly make society better.

My cousin is on welfare, she has four children that need supported, and both the father and her work jobs. One of them has to be home to watch the kids though. She's doing the best she can to make a life and I think she's doing a good job. Is she abusing the system? I don't think so! People need help sometimes and the majority of other people are giant greedy pricks who whine about giving a little bit of money so people can survive.

You don't want welfare? Well fine! When the lower class expands to gigantic sizes and storms the Capitol building shouting for a new, caring government and all order collapses, I will come by and LOOT your house personally and then YOU'LL need welfare.

welfare is needed. but there are those that abuse it. it has gotten better since the 70's but it still has futher to go

My cousin is on welfare, she has four children that need supported, and both the father and her work jobs. One of them has to be home to watch the kids though. She's doing the best she can to make a life and I think she's doing a good job. Is she abusing the system? I don't think so! People need help sometimes and the majority of other people are giant greedy pricks who whine about giving a little bit of money so people can survive.

You don't want welfare? Well fine! When the lower class expands to gigantic sizes and storms the Capitol building shouting for a new, caring government and all order collapses, I will come by and LOOT your house personally and then YOU'LL need welfare.
I understand that not everyone is as lazy as I describe, just many people. However, I'm sure that if charities got a little more impetus to help, your cousin would be living a decent life.

My cousin is on welfare, she has four children that need supported, and both the father and her work jobs. One of them has to be home to watch the kids though. She's doing the best she can to make a life and I think she's doing a good job. Is she abusing the system? I don't think so! People need help sometimes and the majority of other people are giant greedy pricks who whine about giving a little bit of money so people can survive.

You don't want welfare? Well fine! When the lower class expands to gigantic sizes and storms the Capitol building shouting for a new, caring government and all order collapses, I will come by and LOOT your house personally and then YOU'LL need welfare.
However, I have another suggestion. You seem like a man/woman of greater means. Do something nice for your cousin this Christmas, and hire her a financial advisor. They help more than many Americans think. I also think it'd help if she invested more. Some mutual funds obligate a person to contribute as little as $5 a week. Give it a few years, and you'll certainly notice an improvement in her financial condition.

However, I have another suggestion. You seem like a man/woman of greater means. Do something nice for your cousin this Christmas, and hire her a financial advisor. They help more than many Americans think. I also think it'd help if she invested more. Some mutual funds obligate a person to contribute as little as $5 a week. Give it a few years, and you'll certainly notice an improvement in her financial condition.
if you only make enough money to pick between food or medicine or bills, chances are you dont have $20 a month to put in mutual funds

if you only make enough money to pick between food or medicine or bills, chances are you dont have $20 a month to put in mutual funds
Even if you are homeless, however, a few dollars a month into a CD account will go farther than expected. But for most impoverished people, they are not homeless. If they cut out wastes like any credit card debts or such, they could always buy a partial share in a company. In fact, Alan Greenspan thinks that in a few years, most Americans will earn more in the stock market than even from their wages.

Even if you are homeless, however, a few dollars a month into a CD account will go farther than expected. But for most impoverished people, they are not homeless. If they cut out wastes like any credit card debts or such, they could always buy a partial share in a company. In fact, Alan Greenspan thinks that in a few years, most Americans will earn more in the stock market than even from their wages.

1) i dont think you read what i said

2) are they jsut going to stop paying their credit card debts

3) greenspan is an idiot, you have to know how to play the stockmarket, one wrong choice and your broke. why dont we jsut make a federal casino or 3 in each state

My cousin is on welfare, she has four children that need supported, and both the father and her work jobs. One of them has to be home to watch the kids though. She's doing the best she can to make a life and I think she's doing a good job. Is she abusing the system? I don't think so! People need help sometimes and the majority of other people are giant greedy pricks who whine about giving a little bit of money so people can survive.

You don't want welfare? Well fine! When the lower class expands to gigantic sizes and storms the Capitol building shouting for a new, caring government and all order collapses, I will come by and LOOT your house personally and then YOU'LL need welfare.

Seems to me your cousin made the choice to have more children then either she or her husband are capable of caring for am I not reading that right?..So because your cousin wants 4 children she should then be entitled to part of my paycheck?...You said she isn't abusing the system...but you just said that without it she'd be up shit creek without a paddle..so she at present is abusing a system that was initially set up as a temporary shield..just how long has she been on welfare?

I am not a greedy prick, nor am I rich...I am however a person who makes choices in their life and is prepared to accept the consequences of those choices without having to take money from someone else to do it.

1) i dont think you read what i said

2) are they jsut going to stop paying their credit card debts

3) greenspan is an idiot, you have to know how to play the stockmarket, one wrong choice and your broke. why dont we jsut make a federal casino or 3 in each state
I did. You said that between all the expenses, no investments can be made. I contend otherwise. By cutting their more frivolous expenses and using their money conservatively, there is more money to either save or invest. At any rate, they should put it into an ED IRA, as it helps with college, and gurantees future prosperity.
As for credit cards, if someone has a negative balance on them, I don't care how wealthy they are, just cut them up. Gradually pay them off as time goes on.
And Greenspan is not an idiot. Greenspan has more impact on the economy than any president, and over a twenty year track record, it's been improving significantly. In fact, the US economy doubled in size in the last decade alone. Besides, the stock market needn't be dangerous. Blue chips are usually safe, yet they often pay rather generous dividends, allowing oppritunity for growth.

Seems to me your cousin made the choice to have more children then either she or her husband are capable of caring for am I not reading that right?..So because your cousin wants 4 children she should then be entitled to part of my paycheck?...You said she isn't abusing the system...but you just said that without it she'd be up shit creek without a paddle..so she at present is abusing a system that was initially set up as a temporary shield..just how long has she been on welfare?

I am not a greedy prick, nor am I rich...I am however a person who makes choices in their life and is prepared to accept the consequences of those choices without having to take money from someone else to do it.

Some people aren't as lucky as you.

Assuming that those on welfare abuse the system is extremely ignorant, I'd read up on it if I were you.

And what then do you want of a woman who has four children to do? Give them up to adoption or foster care? Or abort? What're we looking at here?

Some people aren't as lucky as you.

Assuming that those on welfare abuse the system is extremely ignorant, I'd read up on it if I were you.

And what then do you want of a woman who has four children to do? Give them up to adoption or foster care? Or abort? What're we looking at here?
I'd say that he means abstinance. It's not only an uncontroversial method of avoiding parenthood, but it is also the best. In this sense, Planned Parenthood has its points.

Some people aren't as lucky as you.

Assuming that those on welfare abuse the system is extremely ignorant, I'd read up on it if I were you.

And what then do you want of a woman who has four children to do? Give them up to adoption or foster care? Or abort? What're we looking at here?

Luck has nothing to do with it...it has to do with making choices...choices are a person's own responsibility...said responsibility can not and should not be alleviated by taking money from someone who has made more informed choices in life.

I've never said that all welfare recipients currently being taken care of by welfare are lazy...but when I drive up and down Elm Hill Pike in Nashville past the J.C.Napier HUD project I can bet you out of 10 work-able men and women only 2 are disabled...Do I have stats..no...but I've not yet found a study that correlated SSI payments for disability and non-disability. Until I do I only have what I see with my own two eyes.

As for the woman and her 4 children..was she able to determine that she could not afford a child..or did she have two and then determine she couldn't afford them without government assistance...I'd say that she knew well in advance whether or not she could afford to indulge her and her husband with 4 children.

Think of it like this..if she did not have welfare..would she have had the children..would the Husband have gotten her pregnant knowing that they didn't have that welfare safety net?

Yes, that's another thing you brought up, Salishe. HUD should be gotten rid of. States should have their own housing departments, and issue their own mortgages to help pay for them.

There is a lot of heat in this debate going from one extreme to another.
But few people are looking at the middle ground.

Here are some facts about "Welfare".

1. Automatically exclude people receiving Unemployment checks. That money is paid into the system by companies and part of it comes from the taxes deducted from our paychecks. Unlike traditional welfare, you get out what you paid in and must pass certain requirements in unemployment to receive it.

2. Welfare Queens no longer exist (though they did for a time) following the Aid to Families with Dependent Children overhaul during the Clinton administration. The maximum amount of time anyone can receive AFDC (called welfare by the public) is 5 years. No more than 18 months at one time is allowed.

3. There are alot of people who live below the poverty line who do not receive cash benefits. They may or may not receive food stamps, WIC, or other forms of subsidized food.

4. Cash benefits are extremely low. The maximum a 2 person household can receive is $142.00/month. Exactly HOW is that encouraging anyone to remain on the system?

5. Participants on AFDC must be registered with the local Employment office, and attend a "work" activity 40 hours/ week. There are classes available for getting a high school diploma, learning computers, how to find a job (interview skills, resume compilations, and discerning the meaning behind employment ads), parenting skills, and how to budget money. Parents are also eligible for child care certificates which will pay some to all of the cost of placing a child in a daycare while employed or attending "work" activities. Parents are responsible for the registration costs (if any), and finding a facility in their area.

6. Lack of transportation is no longer considered a valid reason for not attending work activities. AFDC recipients can receive bus vouchers, van transportation (if they live in an area without bussing) and even gas assistance.

7. Failure to comply with the rules of the AFDC system can result in a temporary loss of benefits. Falsifying documents or incorrect usage of benefits can result in permanent loss of benefits, fines, expected repayment, and jail time.

These are the facts of the AFDC welfare system in the US. Why do I know them? Because I have been receiving benefits to assist in living while I attend college and raise my toddler. His father is not in the picture either, and I would not have been able to reach the goals I have given myself without the assistance of the State.

The SSDI system is, however, quite full of participants who im my opinion should not be receiving benefits.

$142 in itself isn't much, but add that to food stamps. Then there are those that are content to be employed at some low paying job somewhere, that is just something like a clerk at a porn store. They probably don't bother to even look for other job openings.
To be fair, however, I am probably picking on welfare reciepients too much. Rich men cheat the welfare system, as I once saw on 20/20. A group of chiropractors opened shop in a poor neighboorhood in Indianapolis. They got kids on Medicaid to come to their practice after school every day, and get daily checkups totalling $70 a day, per child. Medicaid footed the bill and did nothing about it, and the parents were completely oblivious.

Luck has nothing to do with it...it has to do with making choices...choices are a person's own responsibility...said responsibility can not and should not be alleviated by taking money from someone who has made more informed choices in life.

Not everyone gets the opportunity to make those choices, though, Salishe. They should, but they don't. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand or plays a dirty trick and there's nothing you can do about it. That's why there has to be some sort of safety net there. No matter what system, there will always be abusers because you are right, some people are lazy or irresponsible or just plain rotten to the core. But welfare programs aren't for them, they're leeching off of it and, even if you got rid of welfare, they'd find another way to leech off the system. Welfare is there and needs to be there for people who truly need it's life line. We tried to get through hard times without it once, and we had soup lines and hobos aplenty.


I've never said that all welfare recipients currently being taken care of by welfare are lazy...but when I drive up and down Elm Hill Pike in Nashville past the J.C.Napier HUD project I can bet you out of 10 work-able men and women only 2 are disabled...Do I have stats..no...but I've not yet found a study that correlated SSI payments for disability and non-disability. Until I do I only have what I see with my own two eyes.

I know you haven't and I'd like to apologize for losing my cool in the other thread and making it personal. I tend to respect you and agree with you more often than not which was part of the reason I found what I felt to be your lack of compassion disturbing. In the end, though, I'm not mad at you, but at the system which is undoubtedly broken because good people who are having a run of bad luck and really are trying to get out of it are still falling through the cracks in this country while the rich get richer. Not because they're better, but because they started off that way and once you hit a certain level of wealth in this country, it becomes a self-perpetuating thing. And not only do those people fall through the cracks, but they have to come under the same ridicule and derision as someone who's abusing the system (which is, I agree, far too easy to abuse), except it hurts them more because, unlike the parasite, they have honor and pride and have to sacrifice them both to get food stamps, health care and a place to live.


As for the woman and her 4 children..was she able to determine that she could not afford a child..or did she have two and then determine she couldn't afford them without government assistance...I'd say that she knew well in advance whether or not she could afford to indulge her and her husband with 4 children.

Given that, in her situation, knowing only what I know from the posts, the decision to have more children (or, indeed, any children) is questionable at best, but there are most likely mitigating factors. Even if there aren't, is there any point in plunging the children and the family into poverty for a mistake? How is that a good thing in the long run? People make mistakes. Sometimes they're young. Sometimes they just screw up. It happens. Where's the benefit, though, in letting them flounder and sink beneath bills and child care costs and housing costs and medical costs? How does letting this person and this family benefit society?


Think of it like this..if she did not have welfare..would she have had the children..would the Husband have gotten her pregnant knowing that they didn't have that welfare safety net?

Probably. People had children before welfare and had them in high numbers. If you removed every single welfare program and provision on the books tomorrow, people would still continue to have children that they can't afford to have. Part of it is society's fault. We encourage people to breed when they're not ready, either emotionally or financially, for children. At the least, we encourage people to have sex. Part of it is lack of personal responsibility. Then there are always unexpected situations. Divorce. Death. Abuse. A bad economy. Any one of these reasons as well as a hundred others can derail a family that once had no problems making ends meet.

The children are going to be there and I can't see any society advantage to basically saying, "Let them eat cake." Welfare should be retooled, but there is no advantage to getting rid of it because an irresponsible person will be just as irresponsible regardless of what welfare benefits they may be getting.

Food stamps dont make that much of a difference.

Besides the $142.00/month I receive $256.00 in food stamps. Then add my childcare benefits of $105.00/ week and you have my monthly income from the AFDC system.

The lowly paid clerk at the porn store may or may not get AFDC or any other subsidies. For that matter, my sister was receiving child support for one child and from that small amount was knocked out of receiving AFDC.
The income limits are low, but not that low.

Not everyone gets the opportunity to make those choices, though, Salishe. They should, but they don't. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand or plays a dirty trick and there's nothing you can do about it. That's why there has to be some sort of safety net there. No matter what system, there will always be abusers because you are right, some people are lazy or irresponsible or just plain rotten to the core. But welfare programs aren't for them, they're leeching off of it and, even if you got rid of welfare, they'd find another way to leech off the system. Welfare is there and needs to be there for people who truly need it's life line. We tried to get through hard times without it once, and we had soup lines and hobos aplenty.



I know you haven't and I'd like to apologize for losing my cool in the other thread and making it personal. I tend to respect you and agree with you more often than not which was part of the reason I found what I felt to be your lack of compassion disturbing. In the end, though, I'm not mad at you, but at the system which is undoubtedly broken because good people who are having a run of bad luck and really are trying to get out of it are still falling through the cracks in this country while the rich get richer. Not because they're better, but because they started off that way and once you hit a certain level of wealth in this country, it becomes a self-perpetuating thing. And not only do those people fall through the cracks, but they have to come under the same ridicule and derision as someone who's abusing the system (which is, I agree, far too easy to abuse), except it hurts them more because, unlike the parasite, they have honor and pride and have to sacrifice them both to get food stamps, health care and a place to live.



Given that, in her situation, knowing only what I know from the posts, the decision to have more children (or, indeed, any children) is questionable at best, but there are most likely mitigating factors. Even if there aren't, is there any point in plunging the children and the family into poverty for a mistake? How is that a good thing in the long run? People make mistakes. Sometimes they're young. Sometimes they just screw up. It happens. Where's the benefit, though, in letting them flounder and sink beneath bills and child care costs and housing costs and medical costs? How does letting this person and this family benefit society?



Probably. People had children before welfare and had them in high numbers. If you removed every single welfare program and provision on the books tomorrow, people would still continue to have children that they can't afford to have. Part of it is society's fault. We encourage people to breed when they're not ready, either emotionally or financially, for children. At the least, we encourage people to have sex. Part of it is lack of personal responsibility. Then there are always unexpected situations. Divorce. Death. Abuse. A bad economy. Any one of these reasons as well as a hundred others can derail a family that once had no problems making ends meet.

The children are going to be there and I can't see any society advantage to basically saying, "Let them eat cake." Welfare should be retooled, but there is no advantage to getting rid of it because an irresponsible person will be just as irresponsible regardless of what welfare benefits they may be getting.

Berk...I fully realize you have been under duress..you have nothing to apologize for...It's not a matter of "letting them eat cake"...but "you laid in the bed..now make of it what you can".....while there may or may not be a "society benefit"...it is my opinion that welfare in any form has long since left the "temporary" beginnings that Johnson envisioned..now it has become some giant monster that is self-perpetuating..even with the recent reforms within the last few years...I truly believe that a person..given the option will do better if there is no net...then they would either sink or swim on their own merits...that is what life is...a struggle....I struggled..my parent's struggled..I believe for it to be fair and equal..they should get the same shot I have..

Me for one i don't need it and any one can make money to live

Duh what about people with mental illness? Or single mothers? Or people who've injured themselves on the job? Or people born with disabilities bad enough to not be able to work? You're a fucking moron.

Duh what about people with mental illness? Or single mothers? Or people who've injured themselves on the job? Or people born with disabilities bad enough to not be able to work? You're a fucking moron.

Let's distinquish for arguments sake...Disability payments and SSI or the more commonly thought of in terms of "Welfare"...People who get hurt on the job are applicable for workmen's compensation and disability...I've got no problem with that...single mothers...sounds like a choice to get pregnant in my view, that's personal responsibility...you made your bed no lay in it......

As for the rest..if you can work...you shouldn't get a cent...if one job doesn't do it...you work two..that's how life works...you work for what you have, I work for what I have.

single mothers...sounds like a choice to get pregnant in my view, that's personal responsibility...you made your bed no lay in it......

How about those single mothers who are widows? Who were abandoned by their husband/boyfriend? I mean, how many single mothers do you estimate there are that made the choice to be a single mother?

As for the rest..if you can work...you shouldn't get a cent...if one job doesn't do it...you work two..that's how life works...

Sounds brilliant. Especially since you are ignoring the fact that it is well possible for a person to be out of a job simply because there is no work available. And, please tell me, how can you get two jobs if there isn't even one job to be had?

How about those single mothers who are widows? Who were abandoned by their husband/boyfriend? I mean, how many single mothers do you estimate there are that made the choice to be a single mother? but do you truly believe that the majority of single mothers on welfare are widows??, and if they were abadoned by a husband/boyfriend, again sounds like the type of choices they made in a mate, not my problem



Sounds brilliant. Especially since you are ignoring the fact that it is well possible for a person to be out of a job simply because there is no work available. And, please tell me, how can you get two jobs if there isn't even one job to be had?
Not ignoring it at all..and there is work available..otherwise you'd not have at the very least 12 million illegal Mexicans working here in the States, there are jobs...they may be minimum wage...they may be demeaning, they may be back-breaking..but there are jobs...you may have to take a hr long bus ride to get there...but you do what you must in order to get by..you don't do what you must on my money

oops hit the caos button, anyway why i want to know america has better welfare then half the world and people still want more why?
In relation to industrialized countries, the US fares poorly. Over 20% of Americas children live in poverty and the Human Development Index ranks US 17th in regards to poverty among the top nations of the world. Such a shame for the wealthiest country on the planet. Oh I forgot that, that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_27_1_1.html

You may resume your delusions of grandeur now......

Becuase these people demanding more are socialist morons. Statists. Those in need of welfare are generally lazy disgusting people sorry but true. I am the other extreme belieiving there should be no welfare.
I suggest that if there was no welfare in the US, you would have many people buying guns which are readily available in the US and taking what they need. Actually many are already doing that. Poverty and crime seem to go hand in hand.

The other alternative, could be that they (the needy), just end up selling drugs to your children? NO welfare = more crime.

Not ignoring it at all..and there is work available..otherwise you'd not have at the very least 12 million illegal Mexicans working here in the States, there are jobs...they may be minimum wage...they may be demeaning, they may be back-breaking..but there are jobs...you may have to take a hr long bus ride to get there...but you do what you must in order to get by..you don't do what you must on my money
Q: Do you know how many Americans live in poverty?

A: Approximately 36 Million Americans live in poverty (12.6% of the country); although most southern states are above that, and the highest is 19.8% (Arkansas).

Q: Do you know how America fares against other OECD countries in the Human poverty index?

Human Poverty Index:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_27_1_1.html

A composite index measuring deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index— a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living—and also capturing social exclusion.

A: 17th out of 17 countries. To me that is a crime.

Almost 1 in 5 US kids live in poverty, yet there is enough money to go and fight unnecessary wars in Iraq, which you support.

Do you even care about your fellow citizens?

Apparently not, you think that they are lazy and should get a job, as if there are enough decent jobs out there that people can support a family with.

Do you even care about your fellow citizens?.
of course not, we're america damnit, f-ck the little guy as long as the big guy gets his 4 million a year

who wants to know why our rankng is that bad? the country is pretty much purely capitalism and anyoen who disagrees is a horrible un-american person. damn the little guy because we all know if they didnt want to be so poor they get a fifth full time job

Not ignoring it at all..and there is work available..otherwise you'd not have at the very least 12 million illegal Mexicans working here in the States, there are jobs...they may be minimum wage...they may be demeaning, they may be back-breaking..but there are jobs...you may have to take a hr long bus ride to get there...but you do what you must in order to get by..you don't do what you must on my money

Most of those jobs taken by illegal Mexicans are paying below minimum wage. The employers hire them because then they don't have to pay the wages, benefits, taxes, etc that they would have to pay to a U.S. citizen.

Meanwhile, NAFTA - ie corporate welfare- has allowed many more millions of jobs, jobs which in the United States would employ skilled workers at decent middle class wages to be swept out of this country into other countries so that the fat corporations can continue to get richer.

Want to end welfare. Start with ending corporate welfare.

Q: Do you know how many Americans live in poverty?

A: Approximately 36 Million Americans live in poverty (12.6% of the country); although most southern states are above that, and the highest is 19.8% (Arkansas).

Q: Do you know how America fares against other OECD countries in the Human poverty index?

Human Poverty Index:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_27_1_1.html

A composite index measuring deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index— a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living—and also capturing social exclusion.

A: 17th out of 17 countries. To me that is a crime.

Almost 1 in 5 US kids live in poverty, yet there is enough money to go and fight unnecessary wars in Iraq, which you support.

Do you even care about your fellow citizens?

Apparently not, you think that they are lazy and should get a job, as if there are enough decent jobs out there that people can support a family with.

Then fine..you pay for them...I pay for me and mine..sound fair enough? Those 1 in 5 kids are born in situations where the parents did not make the right choices...that is due to a person's own irresponsibility..that is not my problem.

I care bout my family...other then that....it's their own problem...That is what is great bout my system...I give them the same shot in life that I had. Men like Colin Powell and I and women like Condelezza Rice started with nothing....all minorities...all poor, yet by hard work, making good choices we are at our prospective places today.

And nothing in life is guaranteed...other then dying...as for decent jobs, there are jobs..decent is irrevelent...if it pays you shouldn't be too good for it.

Then fine..you pay for them...I pay for me and mine..sound fair enough? Those 1 in 5 kids are born in situations where the parents did not make the right choices...that is due to a person's own irresponsibility..that is not my problem.

I care bout my family...other then that....it's their own problem...That is what is great bout my system...I give them the same shot in life that I had. Men like Colin Powell and I and women like Condelezza Rice started with nothing....all minorities...all poor, yet by hard work, making good choices we are at our prospective places today.

And nothing in life is guaranteed...other then dying...as for decent jobs, there are jobs..decent is irrevelent...if it pays you shouldn't be too good for it.


you see my point

edit and rice's parents were university professors

Then fine..you pay for them...I pay for me and mine..sound fair enough? Those 1 in 5 kids are born in situations where the parents did not make the right choices...that is due to a person's own irresponsibility..that is not my problem.

I care bout my family...other then that....it's their own problem...That is what is great bout my system...I give them the same shot in life that I had. Men like Colin Powell and I and women like Condelezza Rice started with nothing....all minorities...all poor, yet by hard work, making good choices we are at our prospective places today.

And nothing in life is guaranteed...other then dying...as for decent jobs, there are jobs..decent is irrevelent...if it pays you shouldn't be too good for it.
Ahhhh it is the old "screw you Jack, I'm ok" syndrome. How patriotic is that?

Can you not see the facts here? The rich are getting richer and the poor are falling through the cracks. More poverty, less insurance for medical coverages, less money for schools, higher energy costs, higher prescription costs, and yes less jobs out there.

Yet you support the overstuffed Republicans that want to increase that gap even more. Why is that?

I believe that Violets and Kitties made a valid point.....

"Want to end welfare. Start with ending corporate welfare."

Rescinding those ridiculous $127,000 "tax cuts", to the wealthiest segment of US society would also be a step in the right direction, rather than vilifying the poorest members of your society.

Ahhhh it is the old "screw you Jack, I'm ok" syndrome. How patriotic is that? insisting that someone take responsibility for their own actions has nothing to do with patriotism, our Founding Fathers had no intention on taking on people who would not provide for themselves believing firmly in the biblical prescription.."The Lord helps those who help themselves" you can't find one Constitutional requirement for welfare, that is why both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B Johnson had to shove it in the back door as a series of programs

Can you not see the facts here? The rich are getting richer and the poor are falling through the cracks and taking more money from the middle class to pay for those who are poor is your answer for it?. More poverty, less insurance for medical coverages, less money for schoolswe spend billions on education it has not made our students learn better, that has to come from their own personal sense of responsibilty, again..a choice to learn or not to learn with what they have. More money down the drain will not change that fact, higher energy costs, higher prescription costs, and yes less jobs out there.

Yet you support the overstuffed Republicans that want to increase that gap even more. Why is that?

I believe that Violets and Kitties made a valid point.....

"Want to end welfare. Start with ending corporate welfare."

Rescinding those ridiculous $127,000 "tax cuts", to the wealthiest segment of US society would also be a step in the right direction, rather than vilifying the poorest members of your society.Oh yes..let's vilify those who made their money and can handle their own financial health, and that includes not just the rich but the middle class

Welfare is wrong because it FORCES other to support other people. It should be an optional thing, why should MY money go to someone else. The only people that should be allowed to recieve welfare is disabled people because most of them cannot work I would not be against supporting some who cannot work, the rest of you work harder.

You are SO right! I mean, why should I have to pay for someone else! I think we should scrap the whole public education system too... let those people irresponsible enough to spit out three or four squalling brats put their OWN kids through school! I mean, sure, I have two kids of my own, but I'm sure by the time they're school aged I can afford the $10,000 and up a year for a private school!

Yes, that would mean the government would not support me, but the goverment won't need to support me. They should make it optional to pay welfare.

Isn't it just awesome that you have psychic powers! I'm very happy that you've been able to look into the future and see that you will never lose your job or be rendered unable to work by a debilitating mental illness or physical infirmity. I guess that means you'll be dying young too... if you'll never need any sort of welfare or social assistance, then you CERTAINLY won't be needing any sort of old age pension... which is paid for by the way by everyone because the piddly amount you pay in over the years certainly wouldn't be enough to live on. Sorry about your coming un-timely demise though.

I wish I was psychic too.:(

Most of those jobs taken by illegal Mexicans are paying below minimum wage. The employers hire them because then they don't have to pay the wages, benefits, taxes, etc that they would have to pay to a U.S. citizen. Actually as far as agricultural jobs goes, they tend to pay pretty well, and since they have no taxes to take out, it's pure net for the worker, how do I know, I've known more the a few farmers who have employed the illegals during harvest time

Meanwhile, NAFTA - ie corporate welfare- has allowed many more millions of jobs, jobs which in the United States would employ skilled workers at decent middle class wages to be swept out of this country into other countries so that the fat corporations can continue to get richer.so your against putting another country's people to work?...say a Nike plant relocates to Bombay, India..granted they may pay less then an American but those Indians probaly get more there then they have ever seen in their life

Want to end welfare. Start with ending corporate welfare.

Want to end welfare...Start with demanding personal responsibility.

Then fine..you pay for them...I pay for me and mine..sound fair enough? Those 1 in 5 kids are born in situations where the parents did not make the right choices...that is due to a person's own irresponsibility..that is not my problem.

But they become your responsibility, Salishe, at one point or another. Children growing up in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Then they are your problem. Masses of people without access to health care serve as a breeding ground for disease which can then sweep through the population in general. Then they are your problem. It's nice to say that it's the fault of the person having the kids or who doesn't have a job that provides health care, but it doesn't add up. In the long term, it will end up costing us more, both in dollars and in safety, to clean up the mess than to try and short circuit it at the root.

It would be nice if we could determine where our tax dollars go individually. If that were so, I'd vote to spend less on military contracters and put those dollars into real benefit for the actual fighting men and women and their families. I'd also stop paying for Bush and all politicians to stay at the Ritz when they travel. Motel 6 is good enough for the common man, it should be good enough for them. There are millions of ways tax dollars are being misspent in this country, and we should trying and correct that, but not at the cost of creating a greater problem in the future.


I care bout my family...other then that....it's their own problem...That is what is great bout my system...I give them the same shot in life that I had.

But many don't have that shot. Your mother was a noble woman for doing what she did, no question, and she had the right idea. But in today's world, it's not as easy to find a job, even a low paying one. To simply abandon those who truly need help is not a viable solution. It's just going to cause misery and crime and a further divide in this country between the Haves and the Have Nots.


Men like Colin Powell and I and women like Condelezza Rice started with nothing....all minorities...all poor, yet by hard work, making good choices we are at our prospective places today.

Condolezza Rice hardly started with nothing. Both of Rice's parents were college professors. An interesting bit of trivia, her mother was a music teacher and Condolezza owes her name to a reworking of the italian music term, "con dolcezza", which means to play "with sweetness." Not to take away from her achievements (dubious as they may be), but she had advanatages in life that many didn't.

Colin Powell is more of a self-made man. He is the son of Jamaican immigrents and found his way to success through the military. While there's nothing wrong with a military career, it should be a choice, not something you go into because you have no other options. The fact, though, that Powell's beginnings were much humbler than most in the Bush administration might explain why he's out of step with them so often.


And nothing in life is guaranteed...other then dying...as for decent jobs, there are jobs..decent is irrevelent...if it pays you shouldn't be too good for it.

It's not about "being too good for it," it's about it not paying enough to buy food, health care, housing and the basic necessities with no hope of ever finding a position that will do these things.

Want to end welfare...Start with demanding personal responsibility.

Violets and Kitties raises a good point, though. Although the factuality of off-shoring is something that was going to happen anyway, due to increased globalization and truly multinational corporations that not only have a responsibility to workers in this country, but the entire world...the numbers suggest that the India boom has actually taken away more jobs from Europe than it has from the US. Time will tell if investing in the Low Cost Countries will truly work as explained and offer greater inroads for other service areas and, thus, create more jobs than it shuffles.

Oh yes..let's vilify those who made their money and can handle their own financial health, and that includes not just the rich but the middle class
Please quit writing in comments that I didn't make.

You state that .."The Lord helps those who help themselves",

Well if that is the case, then why is the US in Iraq? They certainly didn't ask the US to HELP them? You keep saying in these threads how good it is that Saddam has been deposed and that the US is now HELPING the Iraqis to rebuild thier lives, even though it is at US taxpayer expense, and yet you do not want to spend that money on your own people.

You state that .."and taking more money from the middle class to pay for those who are poor is your answer for it?."

Please tell me where I said that in any of these threads? What I said was...."Rescinding those ridiculous $127,000 "tax cuts", to the wealthiest segment of US society would also be a step in the right direction". Even Kerry's program talks about this.

You state that .."we spend billions on education it has not made our students learn better, that has to come from their own personal sense of responsibilty, again..a choice to learn or not to learn with what they have. More money down the drain will not change that fact"

You keep putting down your fellow citizens like they are stupid, and that they are a waste of money, in reference to "more money down the drain". Such hypocricy. Meanwhile other less wealthy countries are intuitive enough to know that the children are their future and spend more money on education.

From what I understand, you are just an average citizen, yet you espouse the "corporate" lines/lies. What is in it for you? Do you enjoy tearing down, rather than building up?

Please quit writing in comments that I didn't make.

You state that .."The Lord helps those who help themselves",

Well if that is the case, then why is the US in Iraq? They certainly didn't ask the US to HELP them? You keep saying in these threads how good it is that Saddam has been deposed and that the US is now HELPING the Iraqis to rebuild thier lives, even though it is at US taxpayer expense, and yet you do not want to spend that money on your own people.

You state that .."and taking more money from the middle class to pay for those who are poor is your answer for it?."

Please tell me where I said that in any of these threads? What I said was...."Rescinding those ridiculous $127,000 "tax cuts", to the wealthiest segment of US society would also be a step in the right direction". Even Kerry's program talks about this.

You state that .."we spend billions on education it has not made our students learn better, that has to come from their own personal sense of responsibilty, again..a choice to learn or not to learn with what they have. More money down the drain will not change that fact"

You keep putting down your fellow citizens like they are stupid, and that they are a waste of money, in reference to "more money down the drain". Such hypocricy. Meanwhile other less wealthy countries are intuitive enough to know that the children are their future and spend more money on education.

From what I understand, you are just an average citizen, yet you espouse the "corporate" lines/lies. What is in it for you? Do you enjoy tearing down, rather than building up?

Will more money make a student desire to learn?...No..it won't..that must come from the student's own personal sense of committment and responsibility to learn....we have spent Billions...and still our grades are lower then Europe..but your answer to just throw more money at a problem that money isn't the answer for.

Yes of course America has better social welfare than half the world, because more than half the world is made up of poor countries who probably don't have any social welfare at all.

And the reason many of these poor countries are poor is because the IMF has lent them so much money at such a high rate that any money that they might have had for welfare gets sucked up in payments (not disagreeing with you, just adding further detail).

I understand that not everyone is as lazy as I describe, just many people. However, I'm sure that if charities got a little more impetus to help, your cousin would be living a decent life.

Yeah IF, IF, IF... but they aren't, because there are a bunch of whiny, self-centered social darwinists (although they would probably change their outlook quickly if the positions were reversed) who care more about their bottom line than they do about the poor (and any charity they might give is usually the sort for which they can take credit for, rather than from any real concern for the less fortunate).

(BTW, yes, I realize this is, to some degree, an overstatement, but not any more so than those that equate people on welfare as being lazy)

Even if you are homeless, however, a few dollars a month into a CD account will go farther than expected. But for most impoverished people, they are not homeless. If they cut out wastes like any credit card debts or such, they could always buy a partial share in a company. In fact, Alan Greenspan thinks that in a few years, most Americans will earn more in the stock market than even from their wages.

You haven't, by any chance, overdosed on Bobby Ferrin's "Don't Worry, Be Happy"? ;) How else can one explain that you seem to believe that people who are homeless have any money left over to put into a cd account?

Will more money make a student desire to learn?...No..it won't..that must come from the student's own personal sense of committment and responsibility to learn....we have spent Billions...and still our grades are lower then Europe..but your answer to just throw more money at a problem that money isn't the answer for.

No, you're right, more money won't make a student want to learn, but if schools had more money they would be able to afford textbooks that were actually up to date and in good quality. They'd be able to afford computers that could be used to improve the technological skills of each student (which in this day and age is a requirement), and they'd be able to afford a safer learning environment. Many inner city schools are so unsafe as to be distracting to most students. It's not always about desire to learn, it's about having a quality environment in which to learn.

And don't tell me we are paying billions toward education when there is an UNFUNDED mandate like No Child Left Behind out there.

and still our grades are lower then Europe.
Q. Why are your grades lower than ours?
A. Because a lot of kids are bad at school.

Q. Why are these kids bad at school?
A. Because their families are too poor to foster a learning environment; there are too many other problems.

Q. How do we solve this?
A. Don't cut back social welfare.

uhh but oh wait... you hate social welfare. As you can see it's somewhat hypocritical to whine about low grades and simultaneously demand less social welfare.

Europe, that place whith the better grades, almost unanimously has better social welfare than the US.

Why do people want more? Because it's not sufficient. Anyone living off of welfare...well...let's just say they aren't as well off as they could be if they took a nice job.

Why isn't sufficient? Because it's funded by the federal government's income - from your pockets. We can't ever pour enough money into welfare...charity is another matter, and it works better, in my opinion.


and still our grades are lower then Europe.


On average. Keep in mind America fosters the most active, by far, science community and has many of the most respected institutions (universities) in the world...

If you are under the impression that American kids are all fat, stupid, and lazy, then you are sadly mistaken. We are the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and we didn't get that way through the efforts of french fries guzzling, porno-watching freaks.