NationStates Jolt Archive

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:
Because I enjoy learning … that’s why I went for my masters … two of them

Sad thing is that the children will still grow up in poverty and more than likely live in poverty all their life's.

The welfare system needs a major reformation. As long as our government keeps doing this sort of stuff, there is no incentive for them to get off of welfare.

Welfare really is a sweet deal that some people can take advantage of. Too bad it then ruins it for those who really need it for they would be put into the same category as the one who is just working the system.

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:

you went to college to work as a daycare provider?

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

because even subsidized poverty isn't any fun at all. next question.

Welfare really is a sweet deal

no, it isn't

no, it isn't

In that hypothetical situation given it sure seems to be one to me. Who says you have to live like a middle class person? As long as you cat get by without working then for many that would be a success.

What I don't get is if she's on wellfare, what does she need childcare for? She's at home all day, isn't she?

The welfare system needs a major reformation. As long as our government keeps doing this sort of stuff, there is no incentive for them to get off of welfare.
Gee, I thought the welfare system got reformed within the last ten years or so. I'm sure I saw something in the paper about it.

Welfare really is a sweet deal that some people can take advantage of. Too bad it then ruins it for those who really need it for they would be put into the same category as the one who is just working the system.
Exactly. Any large system is going to attract people who take advantage. We have here a good illustration of that. This case ought ot be looked into but it should not automatically brand all people on government assistance as welfare parasites.

What I don't get is if she's on wellfare, what does she need childcare for? She's at home all day, isn't she?

here, they will pay your childcare if you are "looking for work" which a lot of people use to mean "I read the paper today"

also, they will pay your childcare if you work but don't make enough to cover it (which is typical of most jobs since childcare is damn expensive, when I was going to work outside the home it was going to be $90 a day for both kids)

What I don't get is if she's on wellfare, what does she need childcare for? She's at home all day, isn't she?

people on welfare are supposed to be out looking for jobs if they don't have them.

How long can someone be on welfare? Isn't something like 5 years?

people on welfare are supposed to be out looking for jobs if they don't have them.

What, all day for 5 days a week??? What are they supposed to do, go from house to house to ask if people have work for them?

What I don't get is if she's on wellfare, what does she need childcare for? She's at home all day, isn't she?

not in the u.s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

How long can someone be on welfare? Isn't something like 5 years?

yup. 5 years over the course of your entire life. and in most cases you lose your benefits if you don't have a job within 2 years of getting in the system - and that's the absolute limit. there are penalties before hitting that point too, iirc.

1. I was being Facetious when I asked 'why did I work my ass off at college', I didn't literally mean I would rather have gone on welfare.

2. She does work, for $10 per hour, so she can't afford daycare, so the State pays.

3. Why did I go to college to be a daycare provider? Do the Math. I'm licensed for 12 kids with an earning potential of $8400 per month. I run it out of my home so don't have to pay to run a car. My entire house and all I purchase is a tax write off. I have my own child so don't have to pay for him to attend daycare....not a bad living I think. Next question ;)

So, childcare: check
housing: check
food: check
basic bills: check
basic healthcare: check
anyhting else: too bad.

So, next time you have a beer, think: people on welfare can't afford to have a cold beer at the ned of a hot day.

Next time you're at a restaurant, look around you. None of those folks are on welfare. People on welfare can't afford it.

See that really nice, healthy whole grain bread? I don't think food stamps cover that. Only for rich folks, sorry.

A night out with a friend? Not if you're on welfare.

A visit to the grandparents? Sorry.

The latest movie? Nope. Clothes that aren't second hand? No.

Working washer and dryer in the house? Even if you could pay for them, how could you pay the extra on the bills?

A computer for the kids? Right. Go to the library.

A chance to chat on NSG and defend yourself from people who speculate what welfare is like? Right. Get a job.

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:

Better to pay for the kids to get decent food, medical care, housing and school than to pay to house them in a prison when they grow up to be violent gang members.

Why did you work your ass off and go to college? So you don't end up living with five kids in a 4 bedroom house that somehow fits on a third of an acre.

What, all day for 5 days a week??? What are they supposed to do, go from house to house to ask if people have work for them?

maybe the rest of the time she's out looking for a father for her kids, you never know.

Exactly. Any large system is going to attract people who take advantage. We have here a good illustration of that. This case ought ot be looked into but it should not automatically brand all people on government assistance as welfare parasites.

Unfortunately stereotypes are still out there and just as powerful. People taking advantage is simply something we have to live with but punish them when we catch them. Same with those people who take in foster children for the money. You know how to play that right you can get a lot of money doing that.

So, childcare: check
housing: check
food: check
basic bills: check
basic healthcare: check
anyhting else: too bad.

So, next time you have a beer, think: people on welfare can't afford to have a cold beer at the ned of a hot day.

Next time you're at a restaurant, look around you. None of those folks are on welfare. People on welfare can't afford it.

See that really nice, healthy whole grain bread? I don't think food stamps cover that. Only for rich folks, sorry.

A night out with a friend? Not if you're on welfare.

A visit to the grandparents? Sorry.

The latest movie? Nope. Clothes that aren't second hand? No.

Working washer and dryer in the house? Even if you could pay for them, how could you pay the extra on the bills?

A computer for the kids? Right. Go to the library.

A chance to chat on NSG and defend yourself from people who speculate what welfare is like? Right. Get a job.


This is a real situation. And yes, she can afford beer and smokes - she only earns $10 per hour, but when you have no living expenses, that's not a bad wage. She also has a big screen tv, oh, and the school provides breakfast and lunch, plus school clothes. She has a brand new car, cell phones, computer, you name it. She goes on vacation to California at least once a year (with all 5 kids!!!).

Unfortunately stereotypes are still out there and just as powerful. People taking advantage is simply something we have to live with but punish them when we catch them. Same with those people who take in foster children for the money. You know how to play that right you can get a lot of money doing that.

I absolutely agree, but the stereotypical welfare cheats seem to trigger an overreaction in people. I suppose that's because all we hear about are the most outrageous cheats and not about the people who are actually helped by the welfare system, who use it to survive until they can get on their feet and become self-sustaining.

I was raised by a single unemployed mother, who got child benifits. The government paid me to go to sixth-form college (thirty quid a week, on top of the benifits my mother was getting for me). At one point I was signing on, for over two months. And now I'm going to university, thanks to my fees being paid for.

Hehe...I've stolen lots of taxpayers money. Suckers! :p

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:


Sounds like you are in the wrong business if they piss you off.

This is a real situation. And yes, she can afford beer and smokes - she only earns $10 per hour, but when you have no living expenses, that's not a bad wage. She also has a big screen tv, oh, and the school provides breakfast and lunch, plus school clothes. She has a brand new car, cell phones, computer, you name it. She goes on vacation to California at least once a year (with all 5 kids!!!).

And you know all of this how?

I suppose that's because all we hear about are the most outrageous cheats

not even that - we usually only hear lies and made-up stories. the whole welfare queen thing is a bunch of rightwing bullshit, much like pretty much everything else they've ever had to say on any topic.

strangely, we don't hear much from them about the real welfare queens or the war profiteers. funny, that.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

Because you are not a welfare-feeding whore, I get. But sometimes it is better to be a working man than a whore, just if you are not that leech type.

But 75 thousands a year for that is way over the edge...

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:
You're not going to be popular at the next DNC dance with that attitude, missy.

Seriously, each and every father needs to be hunted down and forced to work to pay some of their debt. Next, this woman needs to be sterilized so that she can't become even more of a burden to those on which she already depends. Last, the kids need to be put in foster homes so that they don't learn the wrong lesson about work vs. welfare.

We need to stop this kind of abuse of our charity.

You're not going to be popular at the next DNC dance with that attitude, missy.

Seriously, each and every father needs to be hunted down and forced to work to pay some of their debt. Next, this woman needs to be sterilized so that she can't become even more of a burden to those on which she already depends. Last, the kids need to be put in foster homes so that they don't learn the wrong lesson about work vs. welfare.

We need to stop this kind of abuse of our charity.

"Charity"... Bwahahahaha! :D You're real funny sometimes :)

"Charity"... Bwahahahaha! :D You're real funny sometimes :)

Yeah, like she earned this by paying taxes?

Yeah, like she earned this by paying taxes?

Like you have a choice in whether or not to pay your taxes ;)

These type of people give welfare a bad name, and add a stigma to something that was meant to help those who truly needed it.

These type of people give welfare a bad name, and add a stigma to something that was meant to help those who truly needed it.

Who is worst? Those people or the people that point to them and scream "See the system is horrible; abolish it!"

Seriously, each and every father needs to be hunted down and forced to work to pay some of their debt.


Cool! You willing to pay taxes to fun the police or something to do it?

Next, this woman needs to be sterilized so that she can't become even more of a burden to those on which she already depends.


Sieg Heil baby!

And for the dumbest comment yet!

Last, the kids need to be put in foster homes so that they don't learn the wrong lesson about work vs. welfare.


I am a child of welfare and guess what? I have never been on it and never will be on it.

Who is worst? Those people or the people that point to them and scream "See the system is horrible; abolish it!"
That's like asking, would you like to be anally probed with a fork or have your nipples pinched in jumper cables.

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

If this were Texas, total cost to the tax payers per month:

$ 0.0000189 per month.

Taxes are spread out among the people, you know.

If this were Texas, total cost to the tax payers per month:

$ 0.0000189 per month.

Taxes are spread out among the people, you know.

That's 'cause they multiply like rabbits there; they've got to build up the secret army so they can take back the Republic...

If this were Texas, total cost to the tax payers per month:

$ 0.0000189 per month.

Taxes are spread out among the people, you know.
What could she do with that money that I couldn't?

Cool! You willing to pay taxes to fun the police or something to do it?



Sieg Heil baby!

And for the dumbest comment yet!


I am a child of welfare and guess what? I have never been on it and never will be on it.

You got my opening bid. Negotiate.

These type of people give welfare a bad name, and add a stigma to something that was meant to help those who truly needed it.

Yeah, people like me! :p

I work, but I haven't been able to get benefits for myself or my son through my company thus far.

I tried to apply for medical assistance once. I didn't want foodstamps or cash aid. I just want to take my son to the dentist, get medical care when it's needed. I got told that I made something like $2.00 over their limit even though I was only making $7.00 per hour working 32 hours per week at the time.

I should be getting benefits through my company soon now -at the cost of something like $250/month- yay. Why can't people who pay taxes take advantage of social services? Ah, well. Life goes on.

And you know all of this how?

I know this because she lives next door, and my best friend owns the house, and she tells me...

And you know all of this how?

I know this because she lives next door, and my best friend owns the house, and since she is my neighbor and I am her daycare provider, she tells me...

i know there are some cases that need welfare and deserve it. but in my opinion theres more on welfare that dont need it then there are that do need it

It seems to me that the real issue here is that daycare is entirely too expensive. Obviously she's going to be on welfare - who could afford daycare and still work?

It seems to me that the real issue here is that daycare is entirely too expensive. Obviously she's going to be on welfare - who could afford daycare and still work?

There is the theory that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to care for them. Daycare is not a right.

There is the theory that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to care for them. Daycare is not a right.
Although I agree, the Canadian political parties all seem to think it is.

Although I agree, the Canadian political parties all seem to think it is.
Actually, the Conservatives don't think daycare is a right; they think they only right a Canadian should have is the right to STFU and agree that gay marriage is the worse thing that could happen to this world; even worse than the Holocaust.

There is the theory that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to care for them. Daycare is not a right.
Yea! Forced abortions for everyone who's 1040 is below a certain level!

i know there are some cases that need welfare and deserve it. but in my opinion theres more on welfare that dont need it then there are that do need it

empirical claims can't be justified by what you feel the answer is

Yea! Forced abortions for everyone who's 1040 is below a certain level!
No one is suggesting that...but 5 kids from 5 different dads seems to tell me that this woman just isn't very good at making life affecting decisions. Maybe she should have gotten training. Maybe some sort of "how not to fuck up your life" course should be compulsory for early school leavers.

One can't help it now, she made the mistakes and it would be unfair to punish the kids. But she should suffer from the bad decisions she made, just like all of us. I quite like the idea of getting people who've been on welfare for a while, and putting them to work on community services. And since the kids have daycare, there wouldn't be an issue. Maybe it would be best anyways to give the kids as much time away from her as possible, to speak to people who can give them a real outlook on a decent life.

The last thing you'd want is to have all those kids drop out of school early and become slobs as well.

Yea! Forced abortions for everyone who's 1040 is below a certain level!

As usual, you're wrong. We're not talking medical procedures, we're talking fiscal and parental responsibility. The IRS has no business knowing my income, but I do know whether or not I can afford to raise a child without the 'village' helping out.

I absolutely agree, but the stereotypical welfare cheats seem to trigger an overreaction in people. I suppose that's because all we hear about are the most outrageous cheats and not about the people who are actually helped by the welfare system, who use it to survive until they can get on their feet and become self-sustaining.

I am one of these people.
At this time last year I was on welfare and living in a homeless shelter with my children after my wife left me.
I was unemployed and severly depressed and nearly lost my children.
I am now employed at the best job I have ever had and living in my own apartment.
But without the help I recieved from Welfare I may have never been able to get to where I am today.

A friend of mine once said "Welfare should be a safety net but not a hammock."

As usual, you're wrong. We're not talking medical procedures, we're talking fiscal and parental responsibility. The IRS has no business knowing my income, but I do know whether or not I can afford to raise a child without the 'village' helping out.
I'll ignore the IRS comment, but what DID you mean then? That acidents don't happen? That people ONLY have children when they want them (Talk to Smunkee about her kids, what was it, using condoms and birth control and it still happened?)? People refrain from sex unless they check their bank accounts first?

When you say something that sweeping, that people should only have childern when they can afford it, I must assume you have a way to enforce that when oppies occure. Or did you just plan to take the children away?

No one is suggesting that...but 5 kids from 5 different dads seems to tell me that this woman just isn't very good at making life affecting decisions. Maybe she should have gotten training. Maybe some sort of "how not to fuck up your life" course should be compulsory for early school leavers.

One can't help it now, she made the mistakes and it would be unfair to punish the kids. But she should suffer from the bad decisions she made, just like all of us. I quite like the idea of getting people who've been on welfare for a while, and putting them to work on community services. And since the kids have daycare, there wouldn't be an issue. Maybe it would be best anyways to give the kids as much time away from her as possible, to speak to people who can give them a real outlook on a decent life.

The last thing you'd want is to have all those kids drop out of school early and become slobs as well.
And, personally, I agree that the woman sounds like a screw up. Nor do I wish to see those kids in a bad situation, I was just questioning the idea of people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, as in how that would actually work.

1. I was being Facetious when I asked 'why did I work my ass off at college', I didn't literally mean I would rather have gone on welfare.

2. She does work, for $10 per hour, so she can't afford daycare, so the State pays.
So this is a person who despite working is not able to provide for her and her children's basic needs. Well obviously it is her fault for daring to live in a country where a job doesnt even pay the bills. The employer who is being subsidised (ie doesnt pay sufficient wages but still gets a worker) and is probably making more out of the deal than the "benificiary" is clearly a hero, and this woman who works for less than subsisdence just so she can still hang her head low as a charity case is clearly a right rat-bag.

3. Why did I go to college to be a daycare provider? Do the Math. I'm licensed for 12 kids with an earning potential of $8400 per month. I run it out of my home so don't have to pay to run a car. My entire house and all I purchase is a tax write off. I have my own child so don't have to pay for him to attend daycare....not a bad living I think. Next question ;)
Right, so you are more than happy to charge more money than people can earn, and when the taxpayer subsidises the rest of your paycheck (by paying for your services which are charged out at such a rate that they are not affordable to wage earners such as this woman) you complain.

You're riding high on the tax-payer, they subsidise your business, you get tax breaks left right and centre despite not even having the normal cost of driving to work. Further more you lack the professional courtesy to refrain from going on the internet and describing private details of your clients' lives.

So far as I can tell you are a hypocrite. You are so offended by this subsidising that is going on that you stick your hand out for a slice of the pie and evidently probably pay a lesser percentage of your cash-income in taxes than this woman you complain about.

This isnt someone who refuses to work, this is someone who's employer doesnt pay a living wage and whos service providers (aka you) charge more for their services than wages will stretch to. Your home is a friggen tax right off for goodness sake!

Either take the money and be grateful, or quite profiting from the whole shambles!

The welfare system needs a major reformation. As long as our government keeps doing this sort of stuff, there is no incentive for them to get off of welfare.

You are right. We need workfare not welfare. With her kids taken care of all day, there is no good reason why this woman can not get a JOB. :mad:

You are right. We need workfare not welfare. With her kids taken care of all day, there is no good reason why this woman can not get a JOB. :mad:
Which probably explains why she has a job...:rolleyes:

That is precisely how it should work. Of course Americans should all have Clinton to thank for his welfare to work policies that began in 1996. Welfare cases have dropped by 50% in the past ten years.

That is precisely how it should work. Of course Americans should all have Clinton to thank for his welfare to work policies that began in 1996. Welfare cases have dropped by 50% in the past ten years.
Clinton didn't really have to do much with welfare reform besides vetoing it twice, and then letting it pass the 3rd time around, when elections were coming up.

I'll ignore the IRS comment, but what DID you mean then? That acidents don't happen? That people ONLY have children when they want them (Talk to Smunkee about her kids, what was it, using condoms and birth control and it still happened?)? People refrain from sex unless they check their bank accounts first?

When you say something that sweeping, that people should only have childern when they can afford it, I must assume you have a way to enforce that when oppies occure. Or did you just plan to take the children away?
Somehow, I don't see this woman as the odd exception. She appears to have either deliberately or ignorantly had children that she couldn't afford. Yes, the children should be placed in foster care because she is unfit to parent them.

Clinton didn't really have to do much with welfare reform besides vetoing it twice, and then letting it pass the 3rd time around, when elections were coming up.

Um... you're wrong. Clinton was the architect of America's current welfare to work policy.
Article from the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7224022

Sorry for racism, but, as you might know, Vault 10 sponsors Bigtopians Say the Darndest Things, and we are interested about what race is she. Just of academic interest, not to imply anything.

Um... you're wrong. Clinton was the architect of America's current welfare to work policy.
Article from the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7224022

Wrong answer. It was Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America that initiated the welfare to work policy. The Republican minority was at their best in those years when they forced Clinton into signing this law, as well as other legislation that actually reduced the size of government.

Maybe next year, when they again find themselves in the minority, they will regain some of the common sense that they have lost.

In that case I stand corrected.

In that case I stand corrected.

Don't give up so easily. Clinton did campaign to "end welfare as we know it." No bills were introduced in Congress to change welfare, so Gingrich stepped forward to push it along.

And to his credit, Clinton did sign the bill in spite of world-wide opposition.

Welfare cases have dropped by 50% in the past ten years.

though not the number or percentage of impoverished people

And to his credit, Clinton did sign the bill in spite of world-wide opposition.

Particularly from the left-wing of his own party I recall. It's all coming back to me.

though not the number or percentage of impoverished people

According to the article, poverty has also dropped.

Um... you're wrong. Clinton was the architect of America's current welfare to work policy.
Article from the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7224022
Um... you are wrong. The Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1994, with one of their major planks in their Contract with America being welfare reform (see 3. Family Responsibility Act). It was forced on Clinton. The article you cite only mentions Clinton signing the bill into law at the beginning of the article. It does not claim he was the "architect", which he was not.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

So, childcare: check
housing: check
food: check
basic bills: check
basic healthcare: check
anyhting else: too bad.

So, next time you have a beer, think: people on welfare can't afford to have a cold beer at the ned of a hot day.

Next time you're at a restaurant, look around you. None of those folks are on welfare. People on welfare can't afford it.

See that really nice, healthy whole grain bread? I don't think food stamps cover that. Only for rich folks, sorry.

A night out with a friend? Not if you're on welfare.

A visit to the grandparents? Sorry.

The latest movie? Nope. Clothes that aren't second hand? No.

Working washer and dryer in the house? Even if you could pay for them, how could you pay the extra on the bills?

A computer for the kids? Right. Go to the library.

A chance to chat on NSG and defend yourself from people who speculate what welfare is like? Right. Get a job.

your incorrect..probably well meaning...but wrong.

i know welfare folks that have their bills paid by me(the taxpayer) and smoke crack everyday..so your cold beer argument is rubbish...my brother in law,worked and made almost as much as me,they collected section 8 housing(free housing)utility supplements,foodstamps,free health..etc.
they party like there is no tomorrow...

i am a single dad of 2 kids(probably qualified for the gov teet)but my tax money goes to them or the gov's various programs..foriegn aid/welfare/defence...whatever..

i can barely pay my bills let alone buy beer everyday..as they do...let alone crack....so your incorrect..period

been there, done that,i aint buying the shit your selling...must be nice to have blinders on..i have seen with my own 2 eyes...firsthand the abuse and leeches.

and trust me..they aint the only ones.

i agree the abusers ruin it for truly needy people...not to mention drain the system for the ones in need...but to say people are so bad off,they cant eat at a restaurant us "rich people" do is funny...seeing as they took the 4 kids they have to disney last year,and i didnt,as i had to pay my daughters car insurance,and eat.

but lest we forget....certain parties(political in nature) want it that way...we are the party of handouts..lol...vote for us and we will let you live for free...smoke your crack..and watch jerry springer all day...need i mention the party?

it is no different then bush giving tax breaks to his rich buddies...it is politically exspediant....for votes..and wrong!

dont think i dont believe in a safety net...but dont try and sell me this altruistic b.s. that the majority of welfare leeches are some dire strait,noble person...it is factually incorrect.

i will help anyone in need..gladly...makes me feel good about myself...and i can use that sometimes...lol..but to say the majority of dependants are not just lazy is foolish,and perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

also,the party of the dems,while well meaning,contributes to this cycle of despair and laziness

I am a child of welfare and guess what? I have never been on it and never will be on it.


Careful when you say that! I used to say the same thing, then we got hit with three hurricanes and I was injured (back) and haven't been able to work for two years.
In order to feed my family I have had to go on food stamps ($583 per month for 7 people)and medicade. It is no fun trying to make ends meet. I am still trying get disability.

I don't like it but I have to put up with it. I would rather work but I walk with two canes, can't stand or sit for more than about 20 min. at the time, can lift no more than 5 lbs/2kilos.and am in constant pain. This makes it hard to find a job that I can do. Walmart door greeters aren't allowed to sit,or I would even consider that.

I didn't plan any of this to happen but that is life

Careful when you say that! I used to say the same thing, then we got hit with three hurricanes and I was injured (back) and haven't been able to work for two years.
In order to feed my family I have had to go on food stamps ($583 per month for 7 people)and medicade. It is no fun trying to make ends meet. I am still trying get disability.

I don't like it but I have to put up with it. I would rather work but I walk with two canes, can't stand or sit for more than about 20 min. at the time, can lift no more than 5 lbs/2kilos.and am in constant pain. This makes it hard to find a job that I can do. Walmart door greeters aren't allowed to sit,or I would even consider that.

I didn't plan any of this to happen but that is life

your the person i would happily give my tax dollars too.....but to pay my b.i.l. to sit around and smoke crack..no thanks.
your the minority of well deserving people we should help....but we spend so damn much on near do wells that are lazy,there is barely anything left for the truly deserving....boils my blood!

your the person i would happily give my tax dollars too.....but to pay my b.i.l. to sit around and smoke crack..no thanks.
your the minority of well deserving people we should help....but we spend so damn much on near do wells that are lazy,there is barely anything left for the truly deserving....boils my blood!


Thank you! I wish I didn't need it but I do and offer my most humble thanks

Thank you! I wish I didn't need it but I do and offer my most humble thanks

no thanks needed.

that is what it was meant for...people that need it...that had a bad break.
not my b.i.l. cause he can scam the system...and in my line of thinking..is taking away from those that deserve it.
and dont foret..i would argue...90% of people on welfare are just lazy/or indoctrinated into it.
the true fraction that are deserving of it...get next to nothing because of the users that drain the system.

little fact....i broke my back in a motorcycle accident,had 2 kids,and i collected because i would have died...and my kids would have starved..if not for welfare.
please dont think i am saying that i hate welfare,it saved me...but i hate the majority of scammers,and the dems for using it as a tool to get votes.

What could she do with that money that I couldn't?

Nothing, really. You could use it for food or clothing, same as her.

Just may be easier for you to do it, so we all play good citizens and pay our taxes so the roads get paved and the less fortunate get taken care of.

Either that, or we put all that money into a 5 year long war we're about to lose.

Take your pick.

i know there are some cases that need welfare and deserve it. but in my opinion theres more on welfare that dont need it then there are that do need it



the logic is.....drum roll..correct!

empirical claims can't be justified by what you feel the answer is


and can you back up your claims?

got stats....lol...doubt it,as it will torpedo your aruement.

No one is suggesting that...but 5 kids from 5 different dads seems to tell me that this woman just isn't very good at making life affecting decisions. Maybe she should have gotten training. Maybe some sort of "how not to fuck up your life" course should be compulsory for early school leavers.

One can't help it now, she made the mistakes and it would be unfair to punish the kids. But she should suffer from the bad decisions she made, just like all of us. I quite like the idea of getting people who've been on welfare for a while, and putting them to work on community services. And since the kids have daycare, there wouldn't be an issue. Maybe it would be best anyways to give the kids as much time away from her as possible, to speak to people who can give them a real outlook on a decent life.

The last thing you'd want is to have all those kids drop out of school early and become slobs as well.

+1

As usual, you're wrong. We're not talking medical procedures, we're talking fiscal and parental responsibility. The IRS has no business knowing my income, but I do know whether or not I can afford to raise a child without the 'village' helping out.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Well, he does bring up a point. If the Government has no right to snoop in on your personal correspondence and communications, what right do they have to snoop on your personal finances? Hypothetically, of course.

and can you back up your claims?

got stats....lol...doubt it,as it will torpedo your aruement.

what the fuck are you on about?

Well, he does bring up a point. If the Government has no right to snoop in on your personal correspondence and communications, what right do they have to snoop on your personal finances? Hypothetically, of course.

It has the "right" due to the income tax. The government has to know if you're paying what you owe.

It has the "right" due to the income tax. The government has to know if you're paying what you owe.

Then couldn't the arguement be made that since the Government has the right to look at your personal finances, they have the right to snoop in your personal correspondence, because they have to protect against crime and such?

As usual, you're wrong. We're not talking medical procedures, we're talking fiscal and parental responsibility. The IRS has no business knowing my income, but I do know whether or not I can afford to raise a child without the 'village' helping out.

Is that not their job.....to know your income so you pay your taxes so your government can fund a welfare state???

Then couldn't the arguement be made that since the Government has the right to look at your personal finances, they have the right to snoop in your personal correspondence, because they have to protect against crime and such?

Yes, but most people think the government needs a warrant or some way to limit the "right" to look at personal correspondances and other personal property. The 4th amendment forbids unreasonable government search and seizure but not government search and seizure itself.

There is the theory that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to care for them. Daycare is not a right.No, but reproduction is, and so is life.

Somehow, I don't see this woman as the odd exception. She appears to have either deliberately or ignorantly had children that she couldn't afford. Yes, the children should be placed in foster care because she is unfit to parent them.There is no information revealed in this thread that indicates that the woman is unfit to parent. Being poor does not make someone unfit.

dont think i dont believe in a safety net...but dont try and sell me this altruistic b.s. that the majority of welfare leeches are some dire strait,noble person...it is factually incorrect.You know this how?

No, but reproduction is, and so is life.

There is no information revealed in this thread that indicates that the woman is unfit to parent. Being poor does not make someone unfit.

You know this how?

But with rights come responsibilities. Excercising one's right to reproduces requires that it make no demands on others, i.e. one must be able to afford the care of the child. It is not a right to have the government provide that care through the coercion of others.

Five children with five different fathers and a complete dependence on the government for support are pretty good indicators that something is wrong with this woman.

But with rights come responsibilities. Excercising one's right to reproduces requires that it make no demands on others, i.e. one must be able to afford the care of the child. It is not a right to have the government provide that care through the coercion of others.

Five children with five different fathers and a complete dependence on the government for support are pretty good indicators that something is wrong with this woman.While I can agree with the first paragraph in theory, there's no way around it. Either you pay the woman to raise the kids, or you pay somebody else more to do it.
The second paragraph isn't quite true, she is working, so the government isn't completely providing support. Additionally, promiscuity itself isn't something that makes an unfit parent, unless she's putting the children in harm's way in the process.

While I can agree with the first paragraph in theory, there's no way around it. Either you pay the woman to raise the kids, or you pay somebody else more to do it.
The second paragraph isn't quite true, she is working, so the government isn't completely providing support. Additionally, promiscuity itself isn't something that makes an unfit parent, unless she's putting the children in harm's way in the process.
Okay, you win. I can't live in a world that is that non-judgemental and so positively blissful.

Okay, you win. I can't live in a world that is that non-judgemental and so positively blissful.Lol. Well, I don't know about non-judgmental and blissful, but I'll take a victory when I get it. :)

While I can agree with the first paragraph in theory, there's no way around it. Either you pay the woman to raise the kids, or you pay somebody else more to do it.

Certainly there is; you cut off support in order to save taxpayers and watch the children starve to death or die from easily preventable diseases. Of course, that would be also unnecessary if we legalised child labour. They could then work to justify their existence.

Heh.

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:

Because you don't support parenthood tests.
I am unknown of your position on less drastic measures like "sex education."

I'll ignore the IRS comment, but what DID you mean then? That acidents don't happen? That people ONLY have children when they want them (Talk to Smunkee about her kids, what was it, using condoms and birth control and it still happened?)? People refrain from sex unless they check their bank accounts first?

When you say something that sweeping, that people should only have childern when they can afford it, I must assume you have a way to enforce that when oppies occure. Or did you just plan to take the children away?

You are right that my children were unplanned, but you forgot the part where I had sex only with my husband and we were able to deal with any "situations" that would arise from that.

There is a difference between me having unplanned pregnancy (meaning that I was prepared for that outcome) and random sex with random men and expecting someone else to pay for it.

You are right that my children were unplanned, but you forgot the part where I had sex only with my husband and we were able to deal with any "situations" that would arise from that.

There is a difference between me having unplanned pregnancy (meaning that I was prepared for that outcome) and random sex with random men and expecting someone else to pay for it.
Indeed, however the comment was that you shoudl only have children if you can afford them, which promoted the problem of what do you do when you were not planning on having kids. I just decided to pre-empt the "use protection" argument with noting, from your experiance, that protection doesn't always work.

Indeed, however the comment was that you shoudl only have children if you can afford them, which promoted the problem of what do you do when you were not planning on having kids. I just decided to pre-empt the "use protection" argument with noting, from your experiance, that protection doesn't always work.
true. I however think it's irresponisble to have sex until you can afford children.

abstinence is 100% protection right? ;)

Bah.

Welfare..

Ugh.

true. I however think it's irresponisble to have sex until you can afford children.

abstinence is 100% protection right? ;)
*lol* Um, Smunkee, could you abstain from enjoying your husband's attentions if your bank account looked slightly shaky?

Be honest now. ;)

*lol* Um, Smunkee, could you abstain from enjoying your husband's attentions if your bank account looked slightly shaky?

Be honest now. ;)

we did for a while, hence the 22 month split between my kids. We also abstained when it was needed for my health.

It's not fun, but sometimes grown ups have to be responsible.

we did for a while, hence the 22 month split between my kids. We also abstained when it was needed for my health.

It's not fun, but sometimes grown ups have to be responsible.
I admit that I am impressed. I seriously doubt however other people have your will power.

I admit that I am impressed. I seriously doubt however other people have your will power.

I know they don't. People without self control often make stupid decisions. ;)

While I can agree with the first paragraph in theory, there's no way around it. Either you pay the woman to raise the kids, or you pay somebody else more to do it.
Isn't it best that people simply have as many children as they can afford, and maybe avoid getting put on welfare that way? Two children would be a lot easier to raise than five. I refuse to support a person if they cannot understand this, either through taxation or charity. Some times, people dig their own grave. If she at least gave some of the children to an orphanage, things might not be so difficult.

The second paragraph isn't quite true, she is working, so the government isn't completely providing support. Additionally, promiscuity itself isn't something that makes an unfit parent, unless she's putting the children in harm's way in the process.
Promiscuity alone doesn't account for bad parenting, no. An inability to plan ahead though, and realise that fewer kids require less finances to raise, is.

Isn't it best that people simply have as many children as they can afford, and maybe avoid getting put on welfare that way? Two children would be a lot easier to raise than five. I refuse to support a person if they cannot understand this, either through taxation or charity. Some times, people dig their own grave. If she at least gave some of the children to an orphanage, things might not be so difficult.

You are kidding, right? First of all, if she did this, the taxpayers would simply end up paying more for those children. Meanwhile, they'd be in a much worse situation.

This woman, from the sounds of it, has been rather irresponsible in her reproductive choices. But there's no reason that we have to make it even *more* of a burden on those kids by dumping them into an orphanage.

But with rights come responsibilities. Excercising one's right to reproduces requires that it make no demands on others, i.e. one must be able to afford the care of the child. It is not a right to have the government provide that care through the coercion of others.

The care isn't being provided to her, it is being provided to the children. It isn't a matter of her rights, but theirs. Someone has to take care of these children. Yes, it sucks that someone seems to have screwed up and now we foot the bill for it. But the alternative is that we stand by while children get harmed.

Five children with five different fathers and a complete dependence on the government for support are pretty good indicators that something is wrong with this woman.

What makes you think that she has a *complete* dependence on the government? I admit that there are few pages of the thread I didn't read. Did we find out that she doesn't work at all?

But with rights come responsibilities. Excercising one's right to reproduces requires that it make no demands on others, i.e. one must be able to afford the care of the child. It is not a right to have the government provide that care through the coercion of others.

Five children with five different fathers and a complete dependence on the government for support are pretty good indicators that something is wrong with this woman.

Now we're far enough in the thread that I KNOW you have to have read that has a job. It pays here 10 dollars an hour which is aparently not enough to suport herself and her children.

You are right that my children were unplanned, but you forgot the part where I had sex only with my husband and we were able to deal with any "situations" that would arise from that.

There is a difference between me having unplanned pregnancy (meaning that I was prepared for that outcome) and random sex with random men and expecting someone else to pay for it.

Just because all her kids have different fathers doesn't mean she was having random sex with random men. As an example of someone I know who has three children with three fathers . . .

Child 1: Her first husband, divorced when he bacame abusive.

Child 2: Baby I'll love you forever (he left her when she became pregnent because he was an asshole).

Child 3: The father actualy did stay with her but was killed in a motercycle acident.

There is the theory that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to care for them. Daycare is not a right.

You seem to have this completely silly idea that government subsidized daycare is there to help the parent. It is not. It is there to ensure that children are taken care of. And yes, I absolutely do believe that children have a right to proper care.


And, personally, I agree that the woman sounds like a screw up. Nor do I wish to see those kids in a bad situation, I was just questioning the idea of people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, as in how that would actually work.

In a perfect world, all adults would be repsonsible people who would make responsible decisions. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world and there's no way to force true responsibility. This is especially true if we are worried about maintaining human rights.

It seems to me that the real issue here is that daycare is entirely too expensive. Obviously she's going to be on welfare - who could afford daycare and still work?


It costs more money to put your dog in daycare than a child!!! $25 for a child who I'm teaching for 10 hours a day.....and with all my qualifications, I think is a bargain.

It costs more money to put your dog in daycare than a child!!! $25 for a child who I'm teaching for 10 hours a day.....and with all my qualifications, I think is a bargain.

Ok. Are you insured?

Which state are you in?

Are you licensed?

Where I live a "good" daycare costs 1400-1800 a month.

You seem to have this completely silly idea that government subsidized daycare is there to help the parent. It is not. It is there to ensure that children are taken care of. And yes, I absolutely do believe that children have a right to proper care.


You missed his comment that the children need to be taken and put into foster care so they learn a work ethic and don't become future welfare recipients.

Ok. Are you insured?

Which state are you in?

Are you licensed?

Where I live a "good" daycare costs 1400-1800 a month.

Yes, I'm licensed, have been for 7 years, in Washington state. I live in a small town and keep my prices low so that daycare is affordable.

You missed his comment that the children need to be taken and put into foster care so they learn a work ethic and don't become future welfare recipients.

I saw it, I just wasn't quite sure how to answer. How is moving the children to another parent (and then another parent and then another parent and then another parent) taking government subsidies to take care of them going to teach work ethic? It would seem to me that watching your only parent work a $10/hr job for years would push you to want to work towards skills that would allow you to move beyond that.

Five children with five different fathers and a complete dependence on the government for support are pretty good indicators that something is wrong with this woman.

Maybe she was raped by 5 different men and is against abortion because of socially conservative morale beliefs.

your incorrect..probably well meaning...but wrong.
...snip
been there, done that,i aint buying the shit your selling...must be nice to have blinders on..i have seen with my own 2 eyes...snip....

I merely took the OP's information, logically deduced what is not being paid for by taxpayers, and listed it.

You typed some semi-coherent rants about some random unprovable anecdote, complained about your inability to budget properly, and then insulted me partway through.

This is a real situation. And yes, she can afford beer and smokes - she only earns $10 per hour, but when you have no living expenses, that's not a bad wage. She also has a big screen tv, oh, and the school provides breakfast and lunch, plus school clothes. She has a brand new car, cell phones, computer, you name it. She goes on vacation to California at least once a year (with all 5 kids!!!).

Sure. If she works 40 hours a week, that's $400 gross, or $20 800 a year, or $1 733 a month, gross. Let's say she takes home 80% of that, or $1 386. When I was making half that money, the government took twice that, so that's a conservative estimate.
Now, gas isn't covered. Phone bills aren't covered. Any other bills such as TV, Internet, school fees, dentist and other non-basic medical fees, car insurance, property tax, school tax, etc. are not covered.
Emergency expenses like car repairs, home repairs,
Then there is the clothes the children wear when they're not in school.
Are school books covered? Art supplies? Field trips? How do they pay for laundry?

If you could honestly pay for all these things every month with only $1 386 for six people every month (a whopping $231 for all incidental expenses for a month) without having to sacrifice many luxuries, I'd be impressed. And many schools provide a uniform, breakfast and lunch, for a fee.

Certainly there is; you cut off support in order to save taxpayers and watch the children starve to death or die from easily preventable diseases. Of course, that would be also unnecessary if we legalised child labour. They could then work to justify their existence.

Heh.Ah, true. But some of them are infants; better to suffocate those ones in their sleep.

Isn't it best that people simply have as many children as they can afford, and maybe avoid getting put on welfare that way? Two children would be a lot easier to raise than five. I refuse to support a person if they cannot understand this, either through taxation or charity. Some times, people dig their own grave. If she at least gave some of the children to an orphanage, things might not be so difficult.

Promiscuity alone doesn't account for bad parenting, no. An inability to plan ahead though, and realise that fewer kids require less finances to raise, is.This goes back to the idea that either you pay her to raise them, or you pay somebody else more to do so. Additionally, the harm done to the children by unnecessarily ripping them from their mother has to be taken into account. Why punish them for their mother's mistakes?

It costs more money to put your dog in daycare than a child!!! $25 for a child who I'm teaching for 10 hours a day.....and with all my qualifications, I think is a bargain.How many days a month does this woman work? At the rate of $25 a day, for $616 a month, she'd have to work over 24 days.

Ah, true. But some of them are infants; better to suffocate those ones in their sleep.

Waste of resources. You could always sell them to someone as a potential investment.

No property taxes - she rents. School provides breakfast and lunch for free. Operation school Bell and other organizations provides clothes and school supplies, daycare trips are paid for by the State, so I'm sure there is help like that for field trips at school. PTA paid for the school photo's. No car payments, she owns.

Ah, true. But some of them are infants; better to suffocate those ones in their sleep.

This goes back to the idea that either you pay her to raise them, or you pay somebody else more to do so. Additionally, the harm done to the children by unnecessarily ripping them from their mother has to be taken into account. Why punish them for their mother's mistakes?

How many days a month does this woman work? At the rate of $25 a day, for $616 a month, she'd have to work over 24 days.

Rate depends on the age of the child and times they are there. I have kids that come in at 4am so charge more, or stay till 7.30pm. If they are there for less than 5 hours or more than 5 hours. I gave a rough price when I said $25 per day.

Rate depends on the age of the child and times they are there. I have kids that come in at 4am so charge more, or stay till 7.30pm. If they are there for less than 5 hours or more than 5 hours. I gave a rough price when I said $25 per day.Oh, I see. Fair enough, then. Do you work 5 days a week, or more?

No property taxes - she rents. School provides breakfast and lunch for free. Operation school Bell and other organizations provides clothes and school supplies, daycare trips are paid for by the State, so I'm sure there is help like that for field trips at school. PTA paid for the school photo's. No car payments, she owns.

Yes, I think you've illustrated the downright despicable character of this truly evil woman enough already. You can whinge all you like about her being irresponsible in having so many children, but that doesn't change the reality that they need to be fed, and without welfare, I don't see her wages stretching far enough to accomplish that goal effectively.

What you haven't done, at least from my cursory reading of this thread, is propose an alternative. If you don't want the state providing welfare, what do you suggest she does to support those children? Because the way I see it, there aren't very many options here.

Depends, I try not to work weekends, I need family time, but it depends on the situation. Am on vacation at the mo :) hence why I'm wasting my time doing this and not housework lol.

Yes, I think you've illustrated the downright despicable character of this truly evil woman enough already. You can whinge all you like about her being irresponsible in having so many children, but that doesn't change the reality that they need to be fed, and without welfare, I don't see her wages stretching far enough to accomplish that goal effectively.

What you haven't done, at least from my cursory reading of this thread, is propose an alternative. If you don't want the state providing welfare, what do you suggest she does to support those children? Because the way I see it, there aren't very many options here.


Not once have I said that she is irresposible having so many children and I'm not whinging about her dispicable character, I actually like her, and not once have I said I didn't think the state should be providing welfare. You are reading other people's responses and assuming I agree.

Not once have I said that she is irresposible having so many children and I'm not whinging about her dispicable character, I actually like her, and not once have I said I didn't think the state should be providing welfare. You are reading other people's responses and assuming I agree.

Your original post certainly implied that you found fault with something about the situation.

Your original post certainly implied that you found fault with something about the situation.

There is a fault in the system, no ystem is perfect, that's why I put it on here as a thread to see other people's oppinions. But I also see the flip side. Lets say for the sake of argument, all the kids on state pay daycare, the parents are abusing the system (of course they're not, I'm just playing along with a little scenario). The money that is paid to the daycare providers is used to

1) pay a builder to expand the business
2) pay a helper
3) buy a car (which employs salesman)
4) the care salesman buys lunch from the local subway every day which in turn provides another job.

etc. you get the picture. So even if people are taking advantage of the system, it all creates jobs, taxes money etc

There is a fault in the system, no ystem is perfect, that's why I put it on here as a thread to see other people's oppinions. But I also see the flip side. Lets say for the sake of argument, all the kids on state pay daycare, the parents are abusing the system (of course they're not, I'm just playing along with a little scenario). The money that is paid to the daycare providers is used to

1) pay a builder to expand the business
2) pay a helper
3) buy a car (which employs salesman)
4) the care salesman buys lunch from the local subway every day which in turn provides another job.

etc. you get the picture. So even if people are taking advantage of the system, it all creates jobs, taxes money etc
You're right about the positive effects of spending tax money. But the flip side of that view is that the tax money has been siezed from someone who could have spent it on his kids daycare, education, new car ... So we're in a situation that rewards people that rely on the goverment in many different ways. It's got to be more productive and beneficial to society in the long run to let us spend our own money.

You're right about the positive effects of spending tax money. But the flip side of that view is that the tax money has been siezed from someone who could have spent it on his kids daycare, education, new car ... So we're in a situation that rewards people that rely on the goverment in many different ways. It's got to be more productive and beneficial to society in the long run to let us spend our own money.

Translation of the stated intent: I, me, and mine.

You do like to focus on the minority that abuse the system rather then the majority it has helped. It is productive and it benefits society. If we get 5 kids that grow up and be productive members of society then it has succeeded quite well.

So what does your man Boortz bitch about this anyway?

Not once have I said that she is irresposible having so many children and I'm not whinging about her dispicable character, I actually like her, and not once have I said I didn't think the state should be providing welfare. You are reading other people's responses and assuming I agree.

My bad, I should have addressed it at everyone. Nevertheless, if you thought everything was fair, why would you make this thread?

EDIT-

There is a fault in the system, no ystem is perfect, that's why I put it on here as a thread to see other people's oppinions. But I also see the flip side. Lets say for the sake of argument, all the kids on state pay daycare, the parents are abusing the system (of course they're not, I'm just playing along with a little scenario). The money that is paid to the daycare providers is used to

1) pay a builder to expand the business
2) pay a helper
3) buy a car (which employs salesman)
4) the care salesman buys lunch from the local subway every day which in turn provides another job.

etc. you get the picture. So even if people are taking advantage of the system, it all creates jobs, taxes money etc

OK...this does seem contradictory with the mood of your first post, but whatever.

No property taxes - she rents. School provides breakfast and lunch for free. Operation school Bell and other organizations provides clothes and school supplies, daycare trips are paid for by the State, so I'm sure there is help like that for field trips at school. PTA paid for the school photo's. No car payments, she owns.

You are correct. She apparently rents in Hud housing. You neglect to mention how much she pays in rent. After checking around on the HUD site, I was unable to determine what the policy is on that. Let's assume the rent is entirely covered. Now, assuming that these other operations you mentioned cover all the clothing and school supply needs, a fact I find questionable, that leaves gas, phone bills, school fees, dentist and other non-basic medical fees, car insurance, car repairs, home repairs, laundry, any tax on the car, any pension or retirement payments she has, cleaning products, toiletries, linens, diapers, furniture, etc. and all the other costs associated with running a family.

Please note that these costs still do not include luxuries like TV, Internet, restaurants, toys, books, bicycles, clothes that the kids can choose themselves, travel, sports, music, food that isn't bought with food stamps, hobbies, and other things you may take for granted.

You are correct. She apparently rents in Hud housing. You neglect to mention how much she pays in rent. After checking around on the HUD site, I was unable to determine what the policy is on that. Let's assume the rent is entirely covered. Now, assuming that these other operations you mentioned cover all the clothing and school supply needs, a fact I find questionable, that leaves gas, phone bills, school fees, dentist and other non-basic medical fees, car insurance, car repairs, home repairs, laundry, any tax on the car, any pension or retirement payments she has, cleaning products, toiletries, linens, diapers, furniture, etc. and all the other costs associated with running a family.

Please note that these costs still do not include luxuries like TV, Internet, restaurants, toys, books, bicycles, clothes that the kids can choose themselves, travel, sports, music, food that isn't bought with food stamps, hobbies, and other things you may take for granted.

I'm saying it's really not a bad living, that's all.

Her $10 hourly wage is equal to $3200 per month - take out taxes etc. lets say for the sake of argument her take home is $2000 (she gets most of her taxes back at the end of the year due to earned income tax credit and 5 children).

She gets wic, so free milk, cheese. formula etc, along with the other afore mentioned benefits.

When you add up the worth of all the benefits she gets, it's really not bad. Now take an average middle class family, lets say they earn $20 per hour. By the time you take out rent, food, heat, cost of daycare, cost of school lunches etc. I bet they actually have less money for 'luxuries' than that particular person on welfare.

I'm saying it's really not a bad living, that's all.

Her $10 hourly wage is equal to $3200 per month - take out taxes etc.

She works 80 hours a week? Holy crap! No wonder she needs daycare!

And I'd say that working 80 hours a week would be a pretty bad living, after all.


A more realistic assumption would be 40-50 hour per week, giving her $400-500 per month. At best, that's about $2000 a month. At worst, it's $1600 - less than I make on a graduate student living stipend.

So, next time you have a beer, think: people on welfare can't afford to have a cold beer at the ned of a hot day.

Next time you're at a restaurant, look around you. None of those folks are on welfare. People on welfare can't afford it.
.

Cataldo's Pizza Parlor doesnt think so

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4582/1001151gl2.jpg

whoops, my bad. But you get the point. Someone earning twice as much as her would have less money for 'luxuries' by the time they pay rent etc.

Translation of the stated intent: I, me, and mine.

You do like to focus on the minority that abuse the system rather then the majority it has helped. It is productive and it benefits society. If we get 5 kids that grow up and be productive members of society then it has succeeded quite well.

So what does your man Boortz bitch about this anyway?
You know as well as I do that 3 of those 5 kids will end up in jail and the other two will slide by in school, just graduating because they put in the time. If they're lucky, they will end up in a job that doesn't require too much thought or action -- probably a government job at the DMV.

Maybe their kids will be motivated to do something useful.

As a personal note to you, you need to get over yourself. Either that or find something useful to do, yourself.

The welfare state does not require reform, it requires abjuration.

The all pervading welfare state in evidence in Britain at present affords families a better quality of life than that they would be financially entitled to were they to work to their capacity. Sensical? Not in the slightest.

I'm saying it's really not a bad living, that's all.

Her $10 hourly wage is equal to $3200 per month - take out taxes etc. lets say for the sake of argument her take home is $2000 (she gets most of her taxes back at the end of the year due to earned income tax credit and 5 children).

She gets wic, so free milk, cheese. formula etc, along with the other afore mentioned benefits.

When you add up the worth of all the benefits she gets, it's really not bad.

That's kind of the point. This woman works at a job, and takes care of a large family as a single parent. She gets enough help from the government that her life is 'really not bad', but it also seems like it's not too good either.

Unless you are suggesting that her and her kids should get less payments so that her and her kids have a life that is worse than 'not bad'.

These type of people give welfare a bad name, and add a stigma to something that was meant to help those who truly needed it.

what is this woman doing that is so bad? she is working full time to support her children and the state is helping her out. isnt that kinda what we WANT?

she isnt sitting home all day watching jerry springer and smoking dope. she is working but not at a wage that can pay the bills for 5 children.

so the state subsidizes her housing, her daycare and her food costs. that makes sure that her children have adequate housing, are well looked after and get enough to eat.

why would we begrudge her children that kind of support? would we really rather that they live in some substandard dwelling, run the streets (or sit locked in her car while she works) and live with constant hunger?

what the fuck has she done to earn so much contempt? had too many children? too bad we dont have enforced abortion for people we judge as being unfit for motherhood.

what is this woman doing that is so bad? she is working full time to support her children and the state is helping her out. isnt that kinda what we WANT?

she isnt sitting home all day watching jerry springer and smoking dope. she is working but not at a wage that can pay the bills for 5 children.

so the state subsidizes her housing, her daycare and her food costs. that makes sure that her children have adequate housing, are well looked after and get enough to eat.

why would we begrudge her children that kind of support? would we really rather that they live in some substandard dwelling, run the streets (or sit locked in her car while she works) and live with constant hunger?

what the fuck has she done to earn so much contempt? had too many children? too bad we dont have enforced abortion for people we judge as being unfit for motherhood.


Actually, it rather is. If the state, and thus the tax paying electorate, is obliged to be "responsible" for the well being of such households, surely are we not entitled a degree of reciprocal responsibility, one manifestation of which may well be not having more children when already recieving welfare payments.
I concede that certain households are rendered needy through divorce, however no small proportion are single mothers who continue, even when living predominantly upon welfare money, to have more children, and thus further their being a burden. Socially responsible? Not in the slightest.

Actually, it rather is. If the state, and thus the tax paying electorate, is obliged to be "responsible" for the well being of such households, surely are we not entitled a degree of reciprocal responsibility, one manifestation of which may well be not having more children when already recieving welfare payments.
I concede that certain households are rendered needy through divorce, however no small proportion are single mothers who continue, even when living predominantly upon welfare money, to have more children, and thus further their being a burden. Socially responsible? Not in the slightest.

Perhaps in an effort to minimize the redundant obfuscation of your argument, you perchance may attempt to simplify your textual rhetoric to a level that aids, rather than hinders, cognitive debate.

As for your point...No. This does not give us the right to tell her what to do with her body.

You know as well as I do that 3 of those 5 kids will end up in jail and the other two will slide by in school, just graduating because they put in the time. If they're lucky, they will end up in a job that doesn't require too much thought or action -- probably a government job at the DMV.

Possibly. Of course, your solution of "take them and put them in foster care" would only increase the chances of an outcome like this. Failing to provide them with food, clothing, and school would only increase said likelihood. And so on...


what is this woman doing that is so bad? she is working full time to support her children and the state is helping her out. isnt that kinda what we WANT?

Indeed. But if she was truly responsible, she never would have had children she couldn't support. So, while the attempts to demonize her as if she were the spawn of hell are out of line, she isn't exactly the model citizen either.

too bad we dont have enforced abortion for people we judge as being unfit for motherhood.

It isn't a matter of what we "judge". If she cannot support her children, she is quite obviously not fit for motherhood. Unless she was somehow able to pay for all of them when she first had them, and then hit hard times, she made the choice to have children she cannot support. If this were not true, she wouldn't be on government support now. I would never force abortion on anyone. However, if this woman is opposed to abortion, then she should either get herself sterilized or not have sex - period. If she isn't opposed to abortion, then she shouldn't be in this situation at all.


Actually, it rather is. If the state, and thus the tax paying electorate, is obliged to be "responsible" for the well being of such households, surely are we not entitled a degree of reciprocal responsibility, one manifestation of which may well be not having more children when already recieving welfare payments.

Red herring. Welfare payments to adults do not increase for children born while the parents are on welfare. That was one of the reforms that Clinton signed into law.

I believe someone requested a solution rather than just whining about the situation. I think that this is definitely needed, but I also think that there is a basic disagreement about if a person should ever receive help from the government. Let us say that we all agree that they should.

The basic problem is that people believe that when one receives aid from the government it is often misused and abused. For instance that the woman owns a car but doesn't pay for anything for her children or the run down houses with people receiving welfare yet you can see their satellite dish. Therefore the problem is evident.

People are using the money that they receive from work to purchase luxury items while the government foots the bill for the necessities. It is fairly acceptable to say that when a person receives a voucher for something the money that they would have spent goes somewhere else. Often times when someone has necessities provided for, they purchase luxuries and continue to rely on others for the necessities.

The Solution. When someone signs up for welfare, they lose control over their finances. They forfeit all of their property and salary to the government. The government then provides for all of their needs. An allotment of their salary is given to the household for savings and nothing else. When enough is saved, the household is allowed to leave welfare and begin again in the free market. This would solve the problem of people receiving government aid while purchasing luxury items.

Perhaps in an effort to minimize the redundant obfuscation of your argument, you perchance may attempt to simplify your textual rhetoric to a level that aids, rather than hinders, cognitive debate.

As for your point...No. This does not give us the right to tell her what to do with her body.

Then she has no right to our property...do you see the double standard?

Perhaps in an effort to minimize the redundant obfuscation of your argument, you perchance may attempt to simplify your textual rhetoric to a level that aids, rather than hinders, cognitive debate.

As for your point...No. This does not give us the right to tell her what to do with her body.

I saw something about the social benefits of enforced sterilization on The History Channel, but it was hard to follow because the narration was in German. [/sarcasm] (I remembered this time!)

I believe that in many states the benefits run out after a time. I think that's the case with Federal assistance, too, some enacted during the :eek: Clinton Administration.

I believe someone requested a solution rather than just whining about the situation. I think that this is definitely needed, but I also think that there is a basic disagreement about if a person should ever receive help from the government. Let us say that we all agree that they should.

The basic problem is that people believe that when one receives aid from the government it is often misused and abused. For instance that the woman owns a car but doesn't pay for anything for her children or the run down houses with people receiving welfare yet you can see their satellite dish. Therefore the problem is evident.

People are using the money that they receive from work to purchase luxury items while the government foots the bill for the necessities. It is fairly acceptable to say that when a person receives a voucher for something the money that they would have spent goes somewhere else. Often times when someone has necessities provided for, they purchase luxuries and continue to rely on others for the necessities.

The Solution. When someone signs up for welfare, they lose control over their finances. They forfeit all of their property and salary to the government. The government then provides for all of their needs. An allotment of their salary is given to the household for savings and nothing else. When enough is saved, the household is allowed to leave welfare and begin again in the free market. This would solve the problem of people receiving government aid while purchasing luxury items.

And it would help the economy by creating jobs in the huge new bureaucracy you just created. And while we're at it, in order to level the playing field, we'll put these folks to work at government jobs, at government mandated salaries. I like it.

Possibly. Of course, your solution of "take them and put them in foster care" would only increase the chances of an outcome like this.

You will have a hard time convincing me that these kids would be worse off away from that mother. How 'bout this? Instead of just telling me that I'm wrong, suggest an alternative that is going to break this cycle. My example was overly optimistic, the more likely result is more like 2 of 5 will be dead before they turn 18, each girl pregnant before she turns 16, and whoever is left will probably end up in jail or marginally employed.

Then she has no right to our property...do you see the double standard?

Well, after reading your post where you propose your solution, I have to say this: I much prefer your solution to the one proposed by the blessed Chris.

Your solution merely removes all financial power from her, while his allows the government to control her reproductive rights.

Let me think more about your solution and criticism of my position and I will respond more intelligently later.

I agree, they are giving her way too much. I think it should be half that, because she is in a lot of need, she should get half her day care, half her car paid off, half of her insurence, etc

Then she has no right to our property...do you see the double standard?She doesn't get our property, her children do.

Well, after reading your post where you propose your solution, I have to say this: I much prefer your solution to the one proposed by the blessed Chris.

Your solution merely removes all financial power from her, while his allows the government to control her reproductive rights.

Let me think more about your solution and criticism of my position and I will respond more intelligently later.

I believe that if she has the "right" to taxpayer money because of her need, more should be expected of her than merely her supposed attempt to find work. (I know that this is not always the case, but unfortunately we cannot speak to each one)

I agree that we have no right to tell someone what to do with their body, but we can certainly put criteria on our assistance to people. We do this constantly with moral codes and such.

She doesn't get our property, her children do.

This is unfortunately what is being attempted, but not what is actually happening. Assistance is given to the children, but it is the adult who benefits and manipulates. The adult, no longer having to attend to their children, may now use all of their resources for themselves. Therefore, when we give free assistance to a child, it is their parent who benefits.

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

The woman works, doesn't she?

Red herring. Welfare payments to adults do not increase for children born while the parents are on welfare. That was one of the reforms that Clinton signed into law.[/QUOTE]

Actually, yes they do in my state. I know in New Jersey, New York and some other States, if you are receiving state benefits and get pregnant while you are on them, you don't get anything more for the next child you have. Thus, if this situation was happening in one of those states, she would have to pay for her last 2 children's daycare, get food stamps for 3 kids, not 5 and so on. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying it. Incidently, she would like to have a 6th child (so she tells me).

You will have a hard time convincing me that these kids would be worse off away from that mother. How 'bout this? Instead of just telling me that I'm wrong, suggest an alternative that is going to break this cycle. My example was overly optimistic, the more likely result is more like 2 of 5 will be dead before they turn 18, each girl pregnant before she turns 16, and whoever is left will probably end up in jail or marginally employed.

And the same things are just as, probably more, likely to happen if you put the kids into the foster care program, where they will be shuttled around from home to home, and most likley separated from not only their mother, but from each other as well. At least, in their current situation, they can receive loving care from their own mother. (Note: If this is not being provided, then there is absolutely no reason to leave them there, and I *do* think they should be removed from the household).

You want to break the cycle? Spend some of that money on job training for the mother so she can find a job that pays more than $10/hr - maybe throw a little sex-ed into the mix. Make absolutely damn sure that those kids receive a decent education.

In my experience, most people who end up needing government aid want something better for their children, and will push them to get it.

This is unfortunately what is being attempted, but not what is actually happening. Assistance is given to the children, but it is the adult who benefits and manipulates. The adult, no longer having to attend to their children, may now use all of their resources for themselves. Therefore, when we give free assistance to a child, it is their parent who benefits.How do we benefit the children without benefitting the adult? Even your solution results in the adult getting benefits.

Actually, yes they do in my state. I know in New Jersey, New York and some other States, if you are receiving state benefits and get pregnant while you are on them, you don't get anything more for the next child you have. Thus, if this situation was happening in one of those states, she would have to pay for her last 2 children's daycare, get food stamps for 3 kids, not 5 and so on. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying it. Incidently, she would like to have a 6th child (so she tells me).

If this is true, she is absolutely unfit to be a mother. Anyone who would even consider bringing another child into the world when she cannot support those she has is absolutely unfit to be a parent. She is neglectful and should be prosecuted as such. I now agree with those saying her children should be taken away from her and she should be kicked off of welfare altogether. She is scamming the system when there are those out there who are truly in need.

And you actually like this woman?

If this is true, she is absolutely unfit to be a mother. Anyone who would even consider bringing another child into the world when she cannot support those she has is absolutely unfit to be a parent. She is neglectful and should be prosecuted as such. I now agree with those saying her children should be taken away from her and she should be kicked off of welfare altogether. She is scamming the system when there are those out there who are truly in need.

And you actually like this woman?

Now, what does that have to do with anything? Aren't we supposed to be separating people from their actions?

And why wasn't the transition from 4 to 5 unfit? Or from 3 to 4? Or even from 0 to 1, if she couldn't support the child?

And the same things are just as, probably more, likely to happen if you put the kids into the foster care program, where they will be shuttled around from home to home, and most likley separated from not only their mother, but from each other as well. At least, in their current situation, they can receive loving care from their own mother. (Note: If this is not being provided, then there is absolutely no reason to leave them there, and I *do* think they should be removed from the household).

You want to break the cycle? Spend some of that money on job training for the mother so she can find a job that pays more than $10/hr - maybe throw a little sex-ed into the mix. Make absolutely damn sure that those kids receive a decent education.

In my experience, most people who end up needing government aid want something better for their children, and will push them to get it.
Why are you condemning foster care? Too many Lifetime network movies? If that's the weak point, how about making it a real alternative to just throwing more money at resources that already exist?

I believe that if she has the "right" to taxpayer money because of her need, more should be expected of her than merely her supposed attempt to find work. (I know that this is not always the case, but unfortunately we cannot speak to each one)

I agree that we have no right to tell someone what to do with their body, but we can certainly put criteria on our assistance to people. We do this constantly with moral codes and such.

She is working, it is not a mere 'supposed attempt to find work'.

And there are probably criteria that she has to follow. To me, it looks like she is doing a good job providing for her family when her job pays her a maximum of $1400 a month.

Now, what does that have to do with anything?

I'm just amazed that someone can look at a woman who would neglect her own children - and then have more - and like that person.

Aren't we supposed to be separating people from their actions?

Why would we do that?

And why wasn't the transition from 4 to 5 unfit? Or from 3 to 4? Or even from 0 to 1, if she couldn't support the child?

It was. I have already said that more than once. But there is still the chance that they were accidental. Granted, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, but actually getting pregnant may have been unintentional. To take it to the point that she would deliberately plan to have a child she cannot support is above and beyond irresponsible.

Why are you condemning foster care?

Because it isn't a good system. It may be the best we have in some cases, but it is still a shitty situation for children. Children need a stable home (that means no shifting them around from house to house) with guardians who truly care about them and are truly responsible for them. Foster care cannot and does not provide this. It gives them a home for a time that may be a good place, or it may be a couple who just wants the government checks. Either way, they can't form any close emotional attachments, because it is just a temporary place anyways.

She is working, it is not a mere 'supposed attempt to find work'.

And there are probably criteria that she has to follow. To me, it looks like she is doing a good job providing for her family when her job pays her a maximum of $1400 a month.

Ok, even if she is working the fact is this, she does not have the ability to provide for her family. You say that she is providing for her family, but in truth it is taxpayers who are providing for her family. Requiring others to help you is not providing for yourself. I agree that there are criteria to follow. What would be the problem with another criteria being that she cannot have another child? The burden of proof is yours.

The Solution. When someone signs up for welfare, they lose control over their finances. They forfeit all of their property and salary to the government. The government then provides for all of their needs. An allotment of their salary is given to the household for savings and nothing else. When enough is saved, the household is allowed to leave welfare and begin again in the free market. This would solve the problem of people receiving government aid while purchasing luxury items.

Is the savings account balance meant to be the motivation of the household to reenter the free market minus any government assistance? How ironic to deny a person the use of money he earns until it is enough to lure him away from money he did not earn. After he spends the entire savings account to bolster his meager wages back up to the level they were with welfare is he eligable for benefits again?

Is the savings account balance meant to be the motivation of the household to reenter the free market minus any government assistance? How ironic to deny a person the use of money he earns until it is enough to lure him away from money he did not earn. After he spends the entire savings account to bolster his meager wages back up to the level they were with welfare is he eligable for benefits again?

I think you are misunderstanding, the government assistance that he receives would be full. By this I mean housing, transportation, food, ect. Therefore they would eat in a cafeteria with others, be bussed to work, and be involved only in free entertainment. This means that there would be no computer, video games, movies, tv, etc. No non-necessities would be provided for. In effect, it would take the households salary to pay for as much of the assistance as possible. If the salary did not pay for all necessities, then the government would provide the rest.

When you say that it would "deny a person the use of the money he earns" you are mistaken. In effect, it forces the household to use their money for necessities instead of luxuries, which is what often happens in the current system. Nothing is denied them, it is your frame of reference that is skewed by our culture.

When you say that it would "deny a person the use of the money he earns" you are mistaken. In effect, it forces the household to use their money for necessities instead of luxuries, which is what often happens in the current system. Nothing is denied them, it is your frame of reference that is skewed by our culture.

OK I understand the motivation of a household to leave an austere existance.
As far as culture skewing a frame of reference, I dont think so. Perhaps I am wrong but you might point out where.

You said that a member of the household would earn wages. You said that part of these would be placed into savings which are not under control of the wage earner. You did not mention any other funding for this savings account other than those of an allotment of the wage earner's wages. You stated that when this account reached an unspecified balance the wage earner was allowed (and not required) to leave the government program.

In what culture or frame of reference is the savings account you described not "to deny a person the use of money he earns until it is enough to lure him away from money he did not earn"? The only place I can see potential for cultural differences to make differences in meaning in that phrase is in the "money he did not earn" part of it.

OK I understand the motivation of a household to leave an austere existance.
As far as culture skewing a frame of reference, I dont think so. Perhaps I am wrong but you might point out where.

You said that a member of the household would earn wages. You said that part of these would be placed into savings which are not under control of the wage earner. You did not mention any other funding for this savings account other than those of an allotment of the wage earner's wages. You stated that when this account reached an unspecified balance the wage earner was allowed (and not required) to leave the government program.

In what culture or frame of reference is the savings account you described not "to deny a person the use of money he earns until it is enough to lure him away from money he did not earn"? The only place I can see potential for cultural differences to make differences in meaning in that phrase is in the "money he did not earn" part of it.

The point of the program is that in all actuality, the household being provided for would in all actuality probably be making more money than they are spending. This would be because they would not be spending any money on frivilous activities. If they weren't making more money than they were spending then they truly are in desperate need of help and it is good that they will continue in the program.

Here is what I meant by the culture statement. Your point was that he could go in and out of the program until he saves enough to get something he wants and then return. However, culture has skewed not your view of my system, but of the current system. This is exactly what happens. The person receives necessities from welfare and then uses their own money to buy what they want. It is continual whereas mine will control this.

Also, you missed that they will be paying their own salary into the system. Their own money will be paying for many of their necessities. This will actually be teaching them that buy paying for their necessities, and then saving the extra, they can work their way out of poverty. Current culture says that those in welfare shouldn't have to pay for themselves, but this system forces them to help pay for themselves.

I did forget to mention that if they choose to stay in the system the small savings account is forfeited.

OK I understand the motivation of a household to leave an austere existance.
As far as culture skewing a frame of reference, I dont think so. Perhaps I am wrong but you might point out where.

You said that a member of the household would earn wages. You said that part of these would be placed into savings which are not under control of the wage earner. You did not mention any other funding for this savings account other than those of an allotment of the wage earner's wages. You stated that when this account reached an unspecified balance the wage earner was allowed (and not required) to leave the government program.

In what culture or frame of reference is the savings account you described not "to deny a person the use of money he earns until it is enough to lure him away from money he did not earn"? The only place I can see potential for cultural differences to make differences in meaning in that phrase is in the "money he did not earn" part of it.

The way I understand the proposition that was made, the rest of the "wages" (that not going into savings) would be used to pay for food, housing, transportation, clothing, etc. of the person in question, as well as their family. Essentially, it would force the person who is living off of government aid to live with only the bare necessities, while putting the rest in a trust fund of sorts - until enough money was saved to help them begin their life anew.

The only problem I see with this is that it called for those in the program to be put in basically unskilled jobs. The problem with this is that, even when they do become self-sufficient, it likely won't be for long, as they still have the same skillset that most likely had them working minimum wage jobs in the first place, and are most likely still unable to properly manage money. Now, if you added job training and financial planning classes to the mix, it would probably be a good idea.

The way I understand the proposition that was made, the rest of the "wages" (that not going into savings) would be used to pay for food, housing, transportation, clothing, etc. of the person in question, as well as their family. Essentially, it would force the person who is living off of government aid to live with only the bare necessities, while putting the rest in a trust fund of sorts - until enough money was saved to help them begin their life anew.

The only problem I see with this is that it called for those in the program to be put in basically unskilled jobs. The problem with this is that, even when they do become self-sufficient, it likely won't be for long, as they still have the same skillset that most likely had them working minimum wage jobs in the first place, and are most likely still unable to properly manage money. Now, if you added job training and financial planning classes to the mix, it would probably be a good idea.
Definitely job training would be part of the program. You could add it as something that people could use their savings on or just put it as part of the program...however, we have a job training of sorts that many welfare benificiaries do not take advantage of. I believe it is called free public school or something like that. It is a start that many never even attempt.

Definitely job training would be part of the program. You could add it as something that people could use their savings on or just put it as part of the program...however, we have a job training of sorts that many welfare benificiaries do not take advantage of. I believe it is called free public school or something like that. It is a start that many never even attempt.

By the time adults are on welfare, they aren't going to be allowed into a high school class - and that's where free public school ends. Not to mention that high school doesn't really give you much job training. Even with a high school diploma or GED, it is quite likely that a person may be unable to find a job that pays much more than minimum wage. College isn't necessary, but those who don't go to college would do well to attend a trade school of some sort - and those are not free.

Most of those who are on welfare are not lazy people who don't want to provide for themselves - they are quite often people who don't know how. If teaching them that isn't part of a welfare system, they will be unlikely to ever reach self-sufficience.

This goes back to the idea that either you pay her to raise them, or you pay somebody else more to do so. Additionally, the harm done to the children by unnecessarily ripping them from their mother has to be taken into account. Why punish them for their mother's mistakes?
All the more reason to support abortion. Not that she'd necessarily utilise it. It simply irritates me to have to fork out cash for people's stupidity, however large (or small) the amount. If you can't afford to raise so many children, don't have them! Simple. If only people could learn this. The only reason I would contribute to the welfare of these children is to avoid having to pay later should they turn into criminals.

If privately funded eleemosynary orphanages could replace state-funded ones, this would at least in part cure the symptoms of this problem, as it would mean I would not be forced to make up for the idiocy of others, unless I wanted to. Perhaps one day there will exist many societies, some aimed at aiding the terminally irresponsible, others for sensible minded people who now how to govern their own affairs maturely.

You know as well as I do that 3 of those 5 kids will end up in jail and the other two will slide by in school, just graduating because they put in the time. If they're lucky, they will end up in a job that doesn't require too much thought or action -- probably a government job at the DMV.

If she was living in the projects, you might be right. However, from what the OP describes she is not. She is also working and not sitting around watching tv and smoking dope.


Maybe their kids will be motivated to do something useful.


As a personal note to you, you need to get over yourself. Either that or find something useful to do, yourself.

:D Sticks and stones love. The same could be said of you.

In my experience, most people who end up needing government aid want something better for their children, and will push them to get it.

I am an example of that.

Mom followed the conservative crap of the good woman being at home. Then my loser of a father took off and left her with 2 kids and no job skills.

She took goverment aid while working and attending night school. We ate rather poorly at times but we got by.

End result. A woman that went on to be an RN with 40000 births in her career. One kid is a WAN engineer for a multinational and the other does custom design on Broadway.

Not a bad return from stealing peoples money. Some people think about the community and the future. Others think only about themselves.

You will have a hard time convincing me that these kids would be worse off away from that mother. How 'bout this? Instead of just telling me that I'm wrong, suggest an alternative that is going to break this cycle. My example was overly optimistic, the more likely result is more like 2 of 5 will be dead before they turn 18, each girl pregnant before she turns 16, and whoever is left will probably end up in jail or marginally employed.

For one thing. The system(at least in this state) only concerns themselves about the kids until they hit 18. Then there are out. Not that many go on to college and better lifes. Especially if they have mental issues.

Not a bad return from stealing peoples money. Some people think about the community and the future. Others think only about themselves.
Being a tad judgemental, are we?

You know as well as I do that 3 of those 5 kids will end up in jail and the other two will slide by in school, just graduating because they put in the time. If they're lucky, they will end up in a job that doesn't require too much thought or action -- probably a government job at the DMV.

I know no such thing, unlike you I'm not precognitive.

Then she has no right to our property...do you see the double standard?

Once the government has your tax money it isn't YOUR property it's the governments, do you see the error you made?

She doesn't get our property, her children do.

No one gets our property. They get money the government has collected as taxes, that money is govenment property (hell take a close look at the money in your pocket, THAT is technicly government property).

No one gets our property. They get money the government has collected as taxes, that money is govenment property (hell take a close look at the money in your pocket, THAT is technicly government property).

You've learned your lessons well, grasshopper. The government does, indeed, look at all our earnings as its property. That's why refunds are referred to as "tax expenditures". It isn't that the government is giving back our money, they are just making an adjustment in what they've collected.

Ok, even if she is working the fact is this, she does not have the ability to provide for her family. You say that she is providing for her family, but in truth it is taxpayers who are providing for her family. Requiring others to help you is not providing for yourself. I agree that there are criteria to follow. What would be the problem with another criteria being that she cannot have another child? The burden of proof is yours.

I work full time. I am not on welfare, and earn enough to be taxed in the middle class income bracket. I don't make enough money to live without government subsidies in the form of tax benefits for dependents, subsidies for daycare, student loan deferrment plans, etc.

Therefore, according to you, me and the majority of Canadians who are the major earners for their families do not provide for their families. Unless those forms of government subsidies are all right, but the ones this woman is collecting are not, for some reason.

Therefore, according to you, the government should have control over my reproductive rights. And if you can not see the problem with another criteria being that she cannot have another child, I don't know what to say. The state can not have any rights to a person's body.

And what burden of proof is mine?

You've learned your lessons well, grasshopper. The government does, indeed, look at all our earnings as its property. That's why refunds are referred to as "tax expenditures". It isn't that the government is giving back our money, they are just making an adjustment in what they've collected.

It's all part of point of view.

Take Republicans. More then once i've heard them allocate funds to the military and throw money at education.

By the time adults are on welfare, they aren't going to be allowed into a high school class - and that's where free public school ends. Not to mention that high school doesn't really give you much job training. Even with a high school diploma or GED, it is quite likely that a person may be unable to find a job that pays much more than minimum wage. College isn't necessary, but those who don't go to college would do well to attend a trade school of some sort - and those are not free.

Most of those who are on welfare are not lazy people who don't want to provide for themselves - they are quite often people who don't know how. If teaching them that isn't part of a welfare system, they will be unlikely to ever reach self-sufficience.
Yes, I said that there would be job training also. I do however find it amazingly niave to believe that the majority of people who dropped out of high school really have the drive to go through trade school.

I also have a beef witht he way that we run high schools.

Yes, I said that there would be job training also. I do however find it amazingly niave to believe that the majority of people who dropped out of high school really have the drive to go through trade school.

I don't. Most people do this thing called maturing - even those who make bad decisions as teens or in their early 20's often become very responsible adults. Talk to Smunkeeville sometime. From the sound of it, she's probably one of the best parents out there, but she made quite a few questionable decisions when she was younger.

I also have a beef witht he way that we run high schools.

I have *many* beefs with the way that schools are run.

I work full time. I am not on welfare, and earn enough to be taxed in the middle class income bracket. I don't make enough money to live without government subsidies in the form of tax benefits for dependents, subsidies for daycare, student loan deferrment plans, etc.

Therefore, according to you, me and the majority of Canadians who are the major earners for their families do not provide for their families. Unless those forms of government subsidies are all right, but the ones this woman is collecting are not, for some reason.

Therefore, according to you, the government should have control over my reproductive rights. And if you can not see the problem with another criteria being that she cannot have another child, I don't know what to say. The state can not have any rights to a person's body.

And what burden of proof is mine?There is a difference between providing luxuries and necessities. If you are unable to provide necessities for your family, then I have no problem with there being criteria for receiving aid.

The burden of proof was that it is up to you to prove that I shouldn't have criteria, such as no more children, for giving aid to people. Simply saying, "The state can not have any rights to a person't body." Doesn't cut it.

I don't. Most people do this thing called maturing - even those who make bad decisions as teens or in their early 20's often become very responsible adults. Talk to Smunkeeville sometime. From the sound of it, she's probably one of the best parents out there, but she made quite a few questionable decisions when she was younger.



I have *many* beefs with the way that schools are run.

Oh, there are definitely people who change and mature. It is quite true, and I think that the basic solution needs to come at the high school levels, but I did say "most". I know that not all people will be unmotivated. Some do mature, but I would say that they are the minority. I would love to be proven wrong, hence the reason that I would offer training.

Once the government has your tax money it isn't YOUR property it's the governments, do you see the error you made?
A hypothetical scenario; if someone - a random individual - takes your money from you perforce, without your consent, does it just become their property? Or does this only apply to the government (essentially a group of individuals entrusted with your power by your consent, at least theoretically)? If so, it's sort of doublethink, no? It's akin to saying murder is wrong if a person does it, but it's magically justified if it's war. I am not using this as a critique against taxation (as a minarchist I see it as a necessary evil), but things must be kept in perspective.

It's all part of point of view.
Agreed. Many of these issues are.

Take Republicans. More then once i've heard them allocate funds to the military and throw money at education.
Very few Republicans out there nowadays are ideologically consistent, or even worthy of much respect. Same with the other side though...

A hypothetical scenario; if someone - a random individual - takes your money from you perforce, without your consent, does it just become their property?


Do you like roads you can drive on?

A hypothetical scenario; if someone - a random individual - takes your money from you perforce, without your consent, does it just become their property?

Yes.

Does it become their just property? Maybe. It depends on what they're using it for.

K, so I wanted to let you know what your taxes are going to. I am a daycare provider, and provide daycare to numerous people including those subsidised by the state. Work this out.

5 children from one mother (5 different fathers). 2 under 2 years is $1680 per month

1 is 4 years old so not in school, full time daycare is 616 per month

2 children age 8 and 10 part time before and after school is $672

Total cost for daycare to tax payers per month is $2968 (more over summer vacation).

She is in Hud housing (5 year old, 4 bedroom, on 1/3 acre home) Total cost to taxpayers per month $1100

She is on food stamps, total cost to taxpayers $700 per month

She is on a subsidised program for gas and electric (price to tax payers unknown by me). She has a 2005 ford 7 passenger van (paid off). She is also on basic health paid for by taxpayers for her and her 5 children. I'm guessing that's got to be at least $1500 per month?

Total cost to tax payers per month is at least $6268.

My question is this. Why did I work my ass off and go to college?

:gundge: :headbang:

What pisses me off is not the help that certain people recieve, it's the circumstances that they recieve it. Basically.. you either have to be a foreigner, a minority or someone who doesn't try to help themselves. If you are an American citizen (especially a white citizen) who puts in your 40 hours a week to support your family, and still aren't able to make the bills, you are not helped at all by the government. But not putting forth any effort, relying strictly on the state/gov, you have all your bills met, living in 'habitat for humanity' houses that far surpass many of the working peoples homes. I get the drift that its all or none. You get help if you do nothing, and get shit if you are actually putting forth an effort.

I'm not saying that anyone 'deserves' help. We do not. No matter who they are. I'm just telling the way it works here.

You get help if you do nothing, and get shit if you are actually putting forth an effort.

I'm not saying that anyone 'deserves' help. We do not. No matter who they are. I'm just telling the way it works here.

They may get help but by working hard enough you can change the amount you earn each year to top whatever they would receive. You can improve yourself and your income through work. A lot more dignity and a chance for ambition.

living in 'habitat for humanity' houses that far surpass many of the working peoples homes.

to be qualified for a habitat home you have to have earned income, not welfare, it has to be over a certain amount and you pay your mortgage like anyone else only you don't pay interest.

*teaches financial planning for habitat*

They may get help but by working hard enough you can change the amount you earn each year to top whatever they would receive. You can improve yourself and your income through work. A lot more dignity and a chance for ambition.

Ofcourse. But many do not strive for better, do not have the grasp of dignity and plain out many just feel like they deserve a handout. The entitlement mentality.

to be qualified for a habitat home you have to have earned income, not welfare, it has to be over a certain amount and you pay your mortgage like anyone else only you don't pay interest.

*teaches financial planning for habitat*

They pay diddly squat. My friend is a regional manager of a local bank. They recently put the final touches (vinel siding etc.) on a 'habitat for humanity' home they sponsered. That family has to pay hardly anything on that house. The project was done for face value. Helping the lowly minority so and so. Maybe the mortgage is different for 'minorities'.

They pay diddly squat. My friend is a regional manager of a local bank. They recently put the final touches (vinel siding etc.) on a 'habitat for humanity' home they sponsered. That family has to pay hardly anything on that house. The project was done for face value. Helping the lowly minority so and so. Maybe the mortgage is different for 'minorities'.

Look before you leap, pal. There are many variations on home ownership in the HFH program, but most items are similar. The owner has to be debt-free, no bankruptcy within one year, and must have a minimum income. They pay a no-interest loan on their mortgage of about $70K - $80K. They must also participate in the construction of these houses. I've volunteered for a couple that an old employer sponsored and the owners, in both cases, have been justifiably proud of their accomplisments.

And I'd rather help a poor family get a house this way that to give any number of dollars to a welfare tenement.

But, you know what? It's Fall in Georgia. That means that there are many better things to do than spend the afternoon in front of a computer. See y'all when the snow is on the ground.

All the more reason to support abortion. Not that she'd necessarily utilise it. It simply irritates me to have to fork out cash for people's stupidity, however large (or small) the amount. If you can't afford to raise so many children, don't have them! Simple. If only people could learn this. The only reason I would contribute to the welfare of these children is to avoid having to pay later should they turn into criminals.That is one reason to contribute to their welfare, yes. Another might be so they can grow up and enter the workforce, presumably paying back the welfare and then some with the taxes collected on their labor.

If privately funded eleemosynary orphanages could replace state-funded ones, this would at least in part cure the symptoms of this problem, as it would mean I would not be forced to make up for the idiocy of others, unless I wanted to. Perhaps one day there will exist many societies, some aimed at aiding the terminally irresponsible, others for sensible minded people who now how to govern their own affairs maturely.I see no particular reason that these privately funded orphanages would be sufficient in number to take in all of the children who would need them.

No one gets our property. They get money the government has collected as taxes, that money is govenment property (hell take a close look at the money in your pocket, THAT is technicly government property).That's true, but I thought it would be better to phrase it the way that I did.

OK I too am a child care provider for ONE family on assistance, three kids, all three in school, Single father, he works in a Cannery, Occasional 12 hr days... 300 dollar co-payment for child care and he gets a subsidy for chld care. That is all he gets, he pays out of pocket for all other expenses, housing, food, medical. They live in a tiny two bedroom apartment. Should he get more? more then likely they are living hand to mouth and I rarely charge the co-payment for this family so I am only making maybe 200 bucks a month watching these kids... yeah all wefaire families are blood sucking parasites alright.

Another thing I tought I would mention, People on cash assistance are expected to be out 40 hrs a week looking for work, if they do not get a job within a certain about of time they are put in job training programs equalling 40 hrs a week. if they do not comply with this they are cut off from benifits. at least this is how it works in Oregon.

Do you like roads you can drive on?
You're avoiding my question - I said, I see taxes as a necessary evil, not that they should be abolished, so I have already answered this.

Yes.

Does it become their just property? Maybe. It depends on what they're using it for.
Agreed - so long as they can hold onto it by force, it remains theirs technically speaking (ironically, the force that holds onto it is still financed by the citizenry ;)). Then, what comes into question, is whether or not monetary expropriation by the State is entirely just. In some circumstances, it is, I suppose, when it comes to providing certain public goods and a safety net. When it comes to unsolicited warfare, excess spending (for instance, why the need for some politicians to receive luxury holidays paid by the State?) and such though, then I am not so sure.

That is one reason to contribute to their welfare, yes. Another might be so they can grow up and enter the workforce, presumably paying back the welfare and then some with the taxes collected on their labor.
Aye.

I see no particular reason that these privately funded orphanages would be sufficient in number to take in all of the children who would need them.
Which is why I am still a minarchist. ;) I don't think they would be sufficient, given my current knowledge. Still, it would be wonderful if private charity could eliminate the need for welfare - I suppose it can, partially, but not wholly - and therefore must be supplemented by state welfare.

Which is why I am still a minarchist. ;) I don't think they would be sufficient, given my current knowledge. Still, it would be wonderful if private charity could eliminate the need for welfare - I suppose it can, partially, but not wholly - and therefore must be supplemented by state welfare.<gasp> You're not going to argue that people would voluntarily give more if it wasn't taken out in taxes? I'm impressed.

3. Why did I go to college to be a daycare provider? Do the Math. I'm licensed for 12 kids with an earning potential of $8400 per month. I run it out of my home so don't have to pay to run a car. My entire house and all I purchase is a tax write off. I have my own child so don't have to pay for him to attend daycare....not a bad living I think. Next question ;)

Does anyone else find it difficult to believe that someone earning $100,000 a year (with generous tax deductions) lives in an area where the government houses people on welfare?

All the knowlege about this woman seems very very convienent (lives next door, knows the landlord well enough for the landlord to tell him how much rent is paid) - and the depth of knowlege on this woman is quite incredible.

<gasp> You're not going to argue that people would voluntarily give more if it wasn't taken out in taxes? I'm impressed.
It is my view that so long as taxation of the rich isn't prohibitively high (for instance, up to 25% on the upper brackets) that they may give to charity anyway, if not only to strengthen their reputation. This is why I don't see publicised charity events as a bad thing - they prompt their fellow rich in this manner in a form of competition. So long as taxation remains within reason, I don't think one's propensity to give to charity is lessened significantly.

Lower (or non-existent) taxation may result in more charity (just like it does when it comes to saving), but not to the extent that is necessary to provide a safety net for the poorest - exactly because saving is likely to be a priority. This is where a welfare system can be useful in tandem with charity - but only if it is efficient. For this reason I am closer to the views of Hayek and Friedman than say, Rothbard.

Yes, the government is giving her the governments money so it isn't technically mine. However, it only takes a logical look at the steps to see that she is getting money from those around her. Lets not play semantics.

Sad thing is that the children will still grow up in poverty and more than likely live in poverty all their life's.

Chiefly because they don't have a parent who will show them how to live; for, it sounds to me, that she doesn't know how to live for herself.

A hand out isn't what these people need, they need a hand up. Someone to motivate them to strive for something better. Which unfortunately even the best government welfare system cannot provide.

The family is suposed to provide this, but in far too many cases people are too selfish to look beond their own needs to provide for the needs of others. That's why our devorce rate is so attrocious. People think that when you say 'I do' its supposed to be all 'happily ever after' like it is in all the books and movies. And when they find out that a good relationship only comes with a lot of work, heartache, and tears, they decide the price is to high and walk out. Leaving their spouses and children with the check.

*sigh*

This isn't an issue the state can handle. These people need people who love them, and are willing to help them to get out of their circumstances. Who will not just give them a living, but teach them to live.