Welfare

Welfare...
Is it a legitimate function of the government to take away the wealth that YOU created and hand it over to someone that's done nothing to earn it? Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Discuss...

>>1

Well, like to paraphrase Newton, "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants". What you may attain in your life is influenced by your conditions. Take a tremendous achiever like Bill Gates, and change his place of birth to Mogadishu, and I would expect to note a dramatic decrease in income.

Do you owe your nation for setting up the conditions that have allowed you to succeed? I would say yes, you do. How much? Uh... that's up to the nation to decide; luckily most people with access to the Intarweb live in nations which pay some lip-service to the idea of "no taxation without representation", so you personally have some say. Perhaps unfortunately, every other citizen of the country you live in has some say on your rate of taxation also. Why? Efficiencies of scale; if every individual could opt-in or opt-out of every social service, the systems of administration and enforcement to keep people from getting a "free ride" would be enormous. It's easier to just subscribe every single citizen to the same "benefit package", e.g., schools, roads, defense of property.

Now, if a majoritarian percentage of your nation wants to give some % of all taxes the government receives to those who don't have a job, you are once again compelled to go along with the majority. Why would anyone want a welfare system? Simply put, it polls like unemployment insurance. The more someone rates their possibility of being unemployed, the more likely they'll support social welfare. The less likely someone is to imagine themselves benefitting, the less likely they are to support it.

>>2
So basically what you believe in is mob rule? Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets? If everyone wants to rob Bob J. Smith of 40% of his salary at the eventual point of a gun, then they're right in doing so? Roads, national defense, mail service, all legitimate actions of government. However, this whole 'Robin Hood' bit is just a little to the right of socialism... You can shove all the military power and governmental might in my face, I don't give a damn. The highest unit of society on this planet is the individual.

Furthermore, aside from mental or physical problems, there's no reason why people should be IN poverty in THIS country. If they are, they're either lazy, have made bad choices in life, or just see nothing to strive for in life. If they're content to live that way, fine. But when they start claiming a right to YOUR money simply because they 'need' it, screw em....

rob J. Smith of 40% of his salary at the eventual point of a gun, then they're right in doing so?

I hate to point out the obvious, but a) you're not doing it at the point of a gun, and b) if the government didn't do it, eventually you would be staring down that barrel. It wouldn't belong to the police, it'd belong to someone very poor and desperate.

here's no reason why people should be IN poverty in THIS country.

You're hopelessly naive. I was born into poverty, since my father ran off with another woman, the legal system screwed my mother, and nobody employs old women. Ageism, you know? She was one of the best at what she did, but that wasn't good enough.

In the end she went back to school, but by then she was 50. She then had a choice to either work all the time, or raise me. She chose to raise me, so we were butt poor, but I had a loving mother around me all the time. I think she made the right choice, even though I think she'll live a few years shorter because of it. She was nervous all the time, counting every dollar, and she's become a very bitter person about the whole affair.

Until society is fair, welfare keeps some semblance of order around. The legal system only works for the rich. Having studied law (thanks to the wonders of a social system, otherwise this would have been impossible for someone of my means), I really believe that the average person is shafted. People do fall through the cracks all the time, and this prevents the system from eating itself alive.

Because, if it wasn't there, that gun against your head might have belonged to me. Given the choice between feeding myself and putting a bullet in your brain, guess which I'll pick first?

Greedy fool.

>>4
You're not considering the rest of my statements... Don't give excuses for your mom, mine's in a poverty situation and I love her to death, but that doesn't excuse the fact that she's made some bad choices in life... Having kids when you can't afford them is a bad choice. Again, don't make excuses...

>>4
And furthermore, the government takes taxes out of your paycheck before you even see the money to be able to miss it... If you refuse you pay your income taxes, they'll come to take your house. If you resist, they send armed men to take it.

>>3

Democracy is majoritarianism, or "mob rule" if you're feeling pejorative. You're demonstrating the common mistaken belief that liberty is intrinsically part of democracy... which it isn't. That's why there are two different words: because they're two different concepts.

And yes, I am in favor of "mob rule", because it is the only ethical system of government. You, on the other hand, are advocating plutocracy. :P

>>5
Are you stupid? What the fuck do you know about her situation, you arrogant prick?

My mom's "mistake" was getting married to the idiot known as my father. They were married for 17 years, and were upper-middle class. Most people would call that a good place to have a child. If that isn't, then tell me, what the fuck is?!

It shows how much you know about the real world. This story is far too common. Men love to bitch about all their money is being ripped off by women, but the truth is the women are the ones who usually get the short end of the stick. Look at the statistics.

And of course people like you pat the real scoundrels on the back, because the people who got stuffed and end up at the bottom was all their mistake. The rich can't do no evil, evemn though most of them became that way through stepping on others! Oh, no!

Idiot.

>>8

Thank you.

>>1

If you can argue that it is a legitimate function of government to fund and operate a fire department, then yes. The same arguments can be made that it is a legitimate function of government to care for people when circumstances overcome their ability to care for themselves.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line. You, I imagine, draw the line right directly between yourself and the colored people. I bet gays and women go on the far side of the line too.

...there seem to be a lot of sons of single mothers here...

(me = +1)

how odd.

>>10, >>2
Look, my whole point was that stealing peoples' money by force or fraud to give it to people who didn't EARN it is wrong. And for that I get called racist and bigoted... I draw the line where someone else has been unfairly taken advantage of, an individual is an individual...

Oh, and >>10 "I bet gays and women go on the far side of the line too." ... I'm bi.

>>12

I'm Mr. 2. Where did I say that theft isn't wrong? :P

Don't be a shmuck, that is not your point.

Your point is that you shouldn't have to share if you don't want to. And maybe you shouldn't. But fuck man, there are lots of places to live in this world. If you don't like the social contract in whichever European welfare state you live in, move to another one. Russia has very low taxes, and so does the U.S. Or hell, try Mogadishu. You never have to worry about taxes there. :P

pro-tip0: insulting the audience's mothers is a poor debate tactic.

pro-tip1: if you find insulting the audience's mothers to be a necessary consequence of your point of view, maybe your point of view is wrong, or at least, not ethical.

>>13

pro-tip2: do we have any chocolate cake left?

>>14

pro-tip3: yes!

The major problem of welfare is that in the end it is a method of control.  The people who are on welfare typically become dependent and forget how to fend for themselves.  Politicians that support welfare are typically using it as a method of indirect vote buying.  Because welfare is handled by government, all a politician need to do is say "vote for me and I'll ensure your "free" money!"  Since the people on welfare have become reliant upon welfare to continue to live, they typically WILL vote for said politician.  Those same politicians will also use this strategy against their opponents as well.  In order to take votes from their opponents, they simply will say, "If you vote for him, he'll take away your welfare and make you starve!"

The next problem is that if a welfare system grows too large, it'll slowly destroy production.  This is similiar to how communism slowly destroys production.  Simply put, as people who have worked hard to earn their living continue to see their money given to those who have chosen to not work for a living, they start to think to themselves, "Why should I work so hard to make money when I could just as easily go on welfare like that guy?"  So that guy chooses to go onto welfare.  Wash, rinse and repeat.  Soon you have a domino effect of the productive members of society giving up and going into welfare.  GNP goes to hell and the country collapses.  Who cares though, right, because the politicians who supported welfare simply leeched all the money off the top of the welfare plan and probably skipped into another country.

This is one of the reason why social and communist ideals just do not work.

>>16

OMG! THAT IS INCREDIBLE! I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT CRAP BEFORE!

Hey, >>16! Look! It's an ELEPHANT!

gagh gagh gagh gagh

>>16
I think you're the first person to agree with my thread. e.e
Congratulations. *Confetti*

>>19
Well, you're wrong. Social welfare is basically a method to maintain social stability and avoid class warfare. You are not just paying for some poor fag's lunch, you are also paying him not to burglarize your house or march on the capital.

<Inst>

if the government doesn't have the right to step in and help people who actually need the help, they shouldn't have the right to do a damned thing to people who can manage on their own anyway.  dump welfare, and you might as well just have straight-out anarchy for all the good it'll do.

>>11
Because I'm that damn smoooooooth. Negro.

>>20
You're still 'awarding' people for being lazy rather than 'punishing' them, at the expense of people who were NOT lazy. -_- If you award people for bad behavior, they keep doing it. If you destroyed government handouts, people would get their damn act together eventually.

If he wants my money, let him come and rob my house. He shall be greeted by my 12-gauge slug of JUSTICE! >:O *Raises finger dramatically*

If he wants my money, let him come and rob my house. He shall be greeted by my 12-gauge slug of JUSTICE!

That has to be the stupidest thing I've read on world4ch all day, and that's really saying something.

Do you hear that? That's your mommy telling you to do your homework and go to bed.

>>24
Learn to better judge somebody else's degree of seriousness. -_-

Why should a kid be punished because his parents don't have money? At least some minimal welfare is necessary to give everyone the same opportunity.

>>26
then only give welfare to parents.

>>26
Why should a kid be punished because his parents don't have money?

Because that is how life is you deluded bastard. When your parents are rich you are rich. That is how life is and have been for a long time. Life is unfair (or extemely fair depending on who you are). Deal with it.

>>28
And when you get shot in the head, you die.  Deal with it.

There's no point in government or law at all then, is there?

>>28

Why do you bother discussing then? "thats how life is and has been" is not an argument, except for retarded morons.

>>25
I know it was a joke. I also know only a thirteen year old brat would find it funny. Anyone older would die in shame from writing such shit bravado.

What, you think this is the movies or something? I AM ARNOLD SCHWARZNEGGER

>>28 doesn't understand the concept of "social species". Truly, he is a marvel of our education system (zOMG waste of taxes lol!).

>>32
welfare doesn't help the bugger get rich y'know. there is free education to help with that. welfare does what. feed him? his parents will take care of tha wouldn't they. in first world countries, poeple don't starve. period. what more would anyone need really. why would i wwant to spend my money so someone else can have more kids

feed him? his parents will take care of tha wouldn't they.

Unfortunately, not always.

in first world countries, poeple don't starve. period.

Holy fuck you live in a bubble. Some people do starve, but even if that wasn't true, why do you think they don't?

Oh, that's right! Welfare! AHA!

why would i wwant to spend my money so someone else can have more kids

Me me me me meeeeee! You realize the welfare system isn't just about letting people have more kids? What country are you from, anyway? US, right?

You're all avoiding my damn main point... -_-

>>35

Your main point being the taking? The stealing? My precioussss?

We're not avoiding it. We're over it.

How else do you have a government? We all *agree* to have the government do this. If not enough people agree, we stop.

Unless I missed it, he's one of those fags who wants all the benefits without paying for it. Schools, roads, hospitals, defense, research, standards, legal, emergency services, etc, etc, it's all obviously free!

Of course, the moment he's getting the cuts, he'll bitch about it. Not in my back yard, amirite?

>>34
Welfare is a form os ME ME ME MEEEEE thing too.  What's so bad about letting parasites die?

>>4
If you tried that the police you cart you off.

Parasite.

>>37

THAT's what I pay TAXES for, dur hur hur. :B

Not so some slob can afford to contribute nothing to society.

>>40

Did you ever stop to think that some people need that money from welfare to get them through tough times? Being on welfare isn't exactly glamorous. Jesus, you make it sound like the welfare system provides a free mansion to every lazy nigger on the street.

To repeat the sentiments of an earlier poster, would you rather be robbed for your wallet or pay a small tax for people who didn't get the same breaks as you? If you want, think of it as a crime/homelessness reduction tax.

>Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Since when is paying taxes a punishment? Unless you're being unfairly taxed, taxation is the government's only means of social upkeep. People without money, like it or not, are a part of society. Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but should we abolish the whole thing just because of those few? Should New York get rid of the Metro because a few kids jumped a turnstile?

>>40
Yeah, that's what you pay taxes for, you dense dolt. You're really good at missing the point, aren't you?

hay guyz, my arguments suck lol so ill just ignore thinks i dont liek

>>41
Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Since when is paying taxes[...]

He said that he is being punished for having to paying the welfare recipients.

>>41
Tough times LOL.  Save money ignorant asshole! 

Most decent people wouldn't start commiting crime if they suddenly became poor.  The people who do commit crime "just because they're poor" are probably idiots and misfits who got fired for the same reason they're now breaking and entering and what not.

I think stupidity causes both crime and poverty; I don't think poverty causes crime.

>>44
To clarify, yes poverty causes crime in some cases, because if stupid people had a ton of money, they wouldn't need to commit crimes. 

But still, my point is that smart people who are poor find a way out of it without getting themselves thrown in the metal clink.

>>41
I'd buy the whole "It isn't glamorous" thing if they didn't so horribly spend the money they're given.  I work at wal-mart, and you can always tell when someone is going to pay with food stamps because they get tons of fatty shit; frozen burrios and egg rolls seem to make up their diets, and they seem to drink nothing but coke, because they always come through with like 50 bottles of them, the expensive brand name stuff too.  Tons and tons of candy, like four boxes of twinkies.  Why are we buying them comfort food?  We're paying for their heart attacks so that they can burden the economy with their health expenses!

In contrast, a normal person gets a loaf of bread, some sandwich makings, dried beans and rice, maybe some sausage; you know, good wholesome food that doesn't cost too much.

I'd say if we're going to do welfare, we should do it more along the lines of WIC tenders; very specific nutritious food that they have to get, like, for example, a gallon of milk and two bags of beans or rice.  Maybe some meat, but not much at all.

But then again, you whiny liberal assholes get mad when we tell them what to get, maybe because making them eat rice would make them "feel bad".  That's a good thing!  It encourages them to get off their asses and GET A FUCKING JOB SO YOU CAN SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY ON HO-HOS!

>>46
Shows why I hate stupid people.  They become poor and then can't figure out why.  They stay poor and can't figure out why.  They are only creatures of their urges, living one day to the next rooting around in the mud for the next bit of refuse.  And they watch Fox.

>>46
The majority of people who end up on welfare don't stay there long, at least where I live. It's a safety net, not a way of life. Given the choice between living on piss and actually earning money so they can live somewhere decent and afford a few luxuries, guess what most people do?

It's easy to point to the worst abuses and scream "destroy it with fire", but then I guess we should get rid of police too, because there are some corrupt ones. Let's get rid of cars because of the Yugo, kill all humans because of tyrants, etc.

Egads, man.

>>48
Why is it that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people are exactly the same in my case?   NONE of them use the money responsably to maybe, I dunno, LAST A WHOLE MONTH?  I never see people who don't look like they came straight out of a trailer use food stamps at wal-mart.

>>49
Sorry for my habit of constantly using so many addendums to my posts, but I think there are some good people who use welfare as a safety net.  Only thing is, they don't stay on welfare long enough to become the majority.  And probably, people that able, fore-thinking, and smart, could have gotten by without it. 

I have a whole lot of anger at these people, lot of bias, because they're usually the ones who pitch a fit and call the manager in my line if something goes wrong (have I mentioned I work at wal-mart?).  There is a consistent pattern, from my point of view, of the dumbfucks making life hard for everyone else.  I really really hate stupid people.

And when we feed them, it just keeps them poor; they never have any incentive to get off of welfare, they just get so fat that they can't work anymore then draw social security (don't scoff; I've seen it happen).

My issue isn't neccesarily with welfare.  It's the fact that we even need it.   That humanity can be so pathetic.  I look at these people, and feel pity, I really do.  But I don't think that feeding them unconditionally is helping them.  I actually think, now this is going to sound horrible, that letting them raise kids who can grow up to be just like them is unfair to the kids.  

It's just impetus for me to get off my ass and get my education so I can be one of the giving, infinitely kind souls with tons of money like you.

>>50
you are an overly emotional radical right winger

seriously, cut down on the crack

That humanity can be so pathetic.

Congratulations, emo kid. You figured it out.

You still want to throw out a system because of a minority? Maybe instead of getting rid of it you'd be better off reforming it a little? Australia does quite well in getting people back working, you know? We're more generous than US of A too.

Actually, fat food and numerous shit is a general sickness of that country, and it's spreading like a disease elsewhere. If you're in the US, just acknowledge your entire society is warped.

>>52
My point was that it's not a minority, it's the majority  Read correctly, plz

and it's the dumber people who are getting fatter, not the professionals who make a lot of money.  They can afford the education which prevents them from letting themselves go in such a way.

>>50
Ideally, everyone would be willing and able to work, and earn their own living.  Unfortunately, people have this annoying tendancy to be 'human beings' which makes them imperfect.  There's people who are lazy, undisciplined, and just plain stupid.  It's part of the package.

If people were smart enough to manage on their own, there'd be no real need for government.  The government is essentially there to prevent society from crumbling around itself, even when it's populated by imperfect people.  Some measure must be taken to ensure that these people have the basic human rights of life and etcetera that all other people do.  The alternative is to let the government decide which 'people' are worth keeping around, and which 'people' should be exterminated.  Not a good direction to go.

>>54
But chances are it's probably the future.

>>54
But chances are it's probably the future.

>>56
Barring the possibility that we go into space and spread out like crazy. 

>>53
Oh, I did, but I think you missed the point. Just because it's a majority in your area doesn't mean that's the case for the entire nation. For all we know you live next to a trailer park in the middle of the South.

They can afford the education which prevents them from letting themselves go in such a way.

Education which isn't free. Me? I'm completing my second degree, the work that awaits me in my field is $80,000 at start, and my skills are in high demand. But guess what? I was born into poverty. How did I scratch my way out? Oh, that's right...

So, you'll pay for welfare, or you'll pay for free education. You can't have it both ways, because eventually you'll end up with a mob of uneducated poor fools who still recognize that violence can achieve things.

And then what?

>>56
Chances are they'll resort to controlling birth before something like extermination. It's a lot safer, you know?

>>59
controlling birth and extermination are much the same thing, except the first generation gets off lucky.

>>60
Only on the most abstract level.

Or do you think gunning screaming people down is equivalent to putting <insert method of controlling procreation>?

>>61
IT'S THE SAME THING

>>61
IT'S THE SAME THING!

>>58
In your case, it was a good investiment.  In the vast majority of cases, you're paying to further someone as a burden on society.

I don't really buy that you wouldn't exist today if it weren't for welfare. 

BTW, if you robbed someone like you say you would have, you would have been thrown in jail where you belonged.  You seem to act like there would have been some justice in the act.  You would just be a common criminal, and worthy of nothing more than being locked away. 

However, I bet you wouldn't have been that stupid, you seem like a bright guy.  I bet you would have gotten a job in a warehouse or a car wash and paid your own way thorough, with HARD WORK, not FREE MONEY.

>>65
You'd be surprised what you're capable of when you're pressed against the wall.  Humans are scrappier than you give them credit for; whether that scrappiness translates into criminal activity or hard work determines your value as a human. 

>>65
Why yes, I would have robbed you. Here, let me make it simple for you. Either I:
a) Commit a crime and live, or
b) Don't commit a crime, and die.

I don't give two shits about morality, justice, or some other faggotry when it's my life on the line. I'll do what I have to in order to survive, including becoming a criminal.

BTW, do you know how much money it costs to keep criminals in prison? Why not just give them a few scraps so those who have a few moral fibers don't have to make that unfortunate decision?

I bet you would have gotten a job in a warehouse or a car wash and paid your own way thorough, with HARD WORK, not FREE MONEY.

Oh, that's true too. But what if there aren't any jobs out there? You know, major recession and all that? And if all the unemployed are on the verge of dropping dead from hunger, wouldn't they have all tied up the grunt work already? There's only so much to go around.

Welfare is called a "social safety net" for a reason. If it wasn't there we might end up with people earning $1 an hour out of pure desperation, particularly since capitalism is a race to the bottom. Hey, the guy's desperate, we're doing him a favour!

Somehow that sort of degradation is a bit repulsive to me. It would also horribly skew our markets.

I doubt that happened in austrailia, dude. 

BTW, it's called social darwinisim.  I don't claim not to be a jerk.

>>69

Good thing we don't let you run our country.

>>69

Social Darwinism is pseudo-science. You might as well be bragging about your mastery of astrology or alchemy.

>>70

You don't? Fuck, where do you live, I need to go there!

>>68
Outside of a vast recession, in which we would need to use government powers to get the country back together and producing again, Welfare is a bad idea.  It makes otherwise capable people who fall through the cracks become dependent upon the government to provide for them.

Because such people literally become "depressed," they may not want to do anything outside of eat and sleep.  In a good economy, one can always find at least a stopgap job until they get a better one. Your mother fits this description, I think. (yo' momma lol)

dependent upon the government to provide for them.

Again, only some. Visit good ol' Oz sometime, and see how it should be done.

In any case, what do you propose we do? Let's say Welfare really was this horrible thing. Should we just cut off welfare and let chips fall where they may? Have you considered the ramifications of that?

Perhaps welfare isn't just a system of catching those who stumbled, but also a system of keeping a large pool of potential malcontents... uh, "content" enough they don't get ideas?

>a system of keeping a large pool of potential malcontents... uh, "content" enough they don't get ideas?

HAHAHAHAAH oh wow.

I love Australia.

The US used to have more of a welfare system but they cut down on it because of the very problem you are describing.

Not. If that was all, they'd have put some reforms in.

The government doesn't care what poor people do, as long as they don't get in the way. The game of politics considers them numbers on a sideline, and little else.

>>76
Truth. 

>>75
Yes, now the US has a pretty good welfare system IMO.  The best possible one I could think of, keeps us from looking like dicks to the rest of the world while costing only a small amount of money to run (comparitively). 

>>73
It's pretty naive to think that poor people on welfare will start a revolution in this current political climate...  Maybe if our police or military was weaker, but today, whenever there's a riot it's put down pretty easily.  Plus, most people have jobs.

I'd say don't get rid of welfare immediately, but phase it out, and drop taxes at the same time.


And Ozzy Kid, Why couldn't your mother work and collect welfare at the same time?  Is there some law against it?  Because it happens all the time in the US.

It's pretty naive to think that poor people on welfare will start a revolution in this current political climate...

No, they won't, because they have no reason to. We're paying them. Furthermore, I never said it would come to revolution. Revolution is probably worst-case scenario, but there are many others, all of them quite undesirable.

I'd say don't get rid of welfare immediately, but phase it out, and drop taxes at the same time.

Your government is already bleeding because of people constantly saying taxes should be dropped. That huge debt you have? The one that's constantly growing? That's because your government doesn't have enough tax money to cover all the expenses. Even if you cut off your war efforts and welfare, dropping taxes is stupid because you're already living beyond your means. The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, what more do you want?

Why couldn't your mother work and collect welfare at the same time?

I've mentioned the reasons above (age and me). And she did, in fact, work (she taught music part-time). Stop assuming you know what was going on. Furthermore, quit attacking my mom, it's beyond pathetic. This is far, far lower than any ad hominem. Do you really have so little shame?

I could bring your mother into the discussion too, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

||Furthermore, I never said it would come to revolution.
That's what we pay police for.

||Your government is already bleeding because of people constantly saying taxes should be dropped.

Actually, it's because Bush is an idiot, but that's another debate.  Under Clinton (god rest his glorious soul) we had a surplus.

||I've mentioned the reasons above (age and me).

Shut the <I>fuck</I> up.  You brought her into the conversation. I never insulted her at all, I was just asking why if she collected welfare she didn't work (which you say she did, and at a very cushy job if you ask me...  sounds lazy to me.  Get a job as a cashier somewhere).  Why couldn't she work full time or get another job?  That's only 40 hours a week in my country.  If she wasn't making enough, she'd still have gotten on welfare right?

*braces for TEACHING MUSIC ISN'T EASY retort*



What it all comes down to is that your mother COULD have worked (at something that's not a hobby for most people anyway).  But she didn't.  And I don't respect her for that.  That's all there is to it.  And that colors YOUR character here.

BTW, it's not ad-hominem because her decisions are central to the argument.  You made it that way when you brought her into the argument early on.  This is why you don't put your personal business on an open forum and then get mad when someone talks about it.  It's bad form internet dude.

>>80

Whatever. Whether or not >>78 brought up his mother, do you believe that by calling his mother lazy you will convince him that his preconceived notions about welfare are incorrect?

No, you do not believe that. You cannot believe that you will convince him of your point of view by calling his mother lazy. It appears to me that you must have some other kind of motivation.

What's that?

Why couldn't she work full time or get another job?

Again, you're hopelessly naive. Who employs old women full-time? If you employ someone full time you have certain legal obligations. And if she did work full time? Well, society complains about latch-key kids... she did her part to prevent that.

it's not ad-hominem because her decisions are central to the argument.

Oh? Since when? What does one example in millions have to do with the argument? Central? No, far on the fringes. The argument is about welfare, not about my mom. You seem adamant to pick and poke on her, because your own argument is so shit full of holes you have nothing else to stand on. Full speed ahead, amirite?

You're sick.

>>79
That's what we pay police for.

There's only so many police. If a large number of people suddenly had no means to live, the crime spike would be beyond the police's ability to handle.

>>82
Wal-Mart, Target, Profitts, Clothes stores, The government in various clerk positions if you have some sort of useful education, hundreads of small shops of the type that exist in the malls, and those are just what I see day to day.  People make OK livings there with jobs that aren't all that bad.  Plus, eight hours a day doesn't prevent you from having time for your kids either.  I really haven't heard that many complaints about latch key kids, to be honest.

82, you are way too emotional.  You used your mother as an example, therefore she's fair game.  But even excluding her, most people on welfare in this country.

I think I actually agree with that guy way back who said he supports welfare in the even of a huge unemployment spike.  Sort of like what truman did during the great depression.  But, my friend, a life handed out by the government doesn't qualify as a life.  I'm glad that in this country, you can only remain on welfare for six months at a stretch, and for two years during a lifetime.  I'm sure if the situation got worse they'd increse it.

Back in the 80's however, welfare was a rampant problem.  People became dependant, a mother would have more kids because another kid meant more money from the welfare office.  There were no restrictions, so that removed all incentive for these people to get to work or anything.  They just continually drained our budget until the Magnificent Clinton in the 1990's decided to make some cuts and turned the system into the leaner machine it is today (interesting how a democrat made a move I agreed with so much).

Seriously, welfare isn't a problem in the US anymore, it's an annoyance, but it isn't so horrible as it used to be.

||82, you are way too emotional.  You used your mother as an example, therefore she's fair game.  But even excluding her, most people on welfare in this country.

Shit, ignore that.

>>83
Martial law is declared, the military comes in, and the police get to turn in their rubber bullets for real ones.

82, you are way too emotional.

Says the person who responded with "Shut the <I>fuck</I> up"? And yes, I think I have a right to be emotional about her considering she sacrificed everything in my name. If I'd never existed, her life would have been far, far better. But let's drop that before we both end up frothing at the mouth.

While I think people who have children with the purpose of getting more money from Welfare are beyond help, most single parent women who end up on welfare didn't do so voluntarily. Do people really have to choose between raising a child properly, and working to survive?

It's easy for men when they walk out the door, since they usually don't end up (nor want) custody of the child. When you don't have others depending on you, and needing your attention, it's so much simpler.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever raised any children?

>>86
Kind of bloody, isn't it? And even the army will have trouble enforcing order, considering the poor won't necessarily be wearing "shoot me, I'm a poor bugger!"

And what about the ones that survive? Survival of the fittest will result in some very successful organized crime after a few years.

>>87
Men usually have to pay child support for things they created.  File for it, they'll track him down, garnish his wages.  Maybe such a system doesn't exist in austrailia, but whatever. 

No I've never raised children, but I was raised in an extremely lassize-faire way.  Take from that whatever you want.

Forgetting everything else about welfare, as I think we've pretty much gone as far as we're going to go with that, I was talking about the police enforcing the LAAWAH when the lone poor person tries to rob me.  If we had riots, yes, definately something needs to be done, I think they'd do what needed to be done before it got to that level (with projects to just keep them busy and what not).

My most major problem with government is this; it never shrinks.  If you make someone depend on you for money, you can make them depend on you for information, and eventually, you are completely under their control.  And I know that you can't trust large groups of people to do anything good for the middle class type of people when they're in control.  That's my major fear; that we'll become so complacent.  That can lead to use either never acheiving anything at all (in the best case, a path down which I think europe is heading, if that sounds like a good thing to you then go ahead and take it), or becoming wards of the state, to use as they see fit (as in nazi-ism and almost all armies of the world, I'm not excluding the US).  I'm not a guy who sits in his backyard with a shotgun and screams about people getting on mah layand, I just don't want to get too involved in that which doesn't concern me immediately. 

In summation, I know I went overboard talking about your mom, and talking about the people who come through my line at wal-mart using foodstamps.  And I know that globalization is enevitable, as is increased government involvement in our lives, (probably to the point of controlling out reproductive stuff and all that).  I just see all this group-thinking, rely on everyone else, and I see a fucking horrible future that can come of it. 

This is sort of a combination of a reply to >>87 and >>86 >>88 combined, or at least what reading their posts made me think.

Men usually have to pay child support for things they created.

Why do I always have to bring my personal life into this (not your fault)? Fine, personal anecdotal evidence to the contrary: my mom did just that, the government went after my wonderfully rich father (very), and... what? Nothing! Nothing happened.

Another friend had the same thing happen to him. $40,000 later in legal fees... the judge ordered the father to pay some ridiculously small pittance that only covered a tiny fraction of the legal fees. Where did that $40,000 go? It sailed into the pocket of the lawyer. The mother would have been far better off walking away. If fact, it's usually best to walk away. Sad, isn't it?

The government is useless when it comes to hunting down deadbeats. The problem is that people lie through their teeth in the courtroom, bullshit all over their income returns, and usually hide their assets in several different accounts and other places. These are deadbeats, remember? Not honest people? In the courtroom, the honest and/or the nonaggressive lose.

I see it all the time, since law is one of my vocations. The judge is only human, so has to play it safe, and all the while the lawyers are getting stinking rich off the misery of others. The man usually starts of lying like a maniac, the woman desperately starts exagerrating in return, and you end up with an ugly mess.

Anyway, I disagree. I don't think welfare is the problem. Welfare is a great idea, but it sounds like the implementation in the US is borked. I've pointed to Australia twice, and I'll point to it yet again: people who don't want to work will end up working regardless over here, because of the way the system is designed.

And I know that globalization is enevitable, as is increased government involvement in our lives

Won't argue that. I don't like the direction things are heading either.

*exaggerating