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...

>>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