16 kids!!!!!!!!

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

You know, this causes angst. On the one hand, you don't want people starving, but on the other you don't want to have to support lazy good-for-nothings....where to draw the line? How do you weed out the good-for-nothings?

You'll never have a 100% perfect system. But the last round of welfare reform did a pretty good job. The good-for-nothings are a tiny tiny percentage of the people receiving welfare. Unfortunately you'll have people that take advantage, but it's not enough to be concerned about. It amounts to a couple dollars per tax payer per year.

[popsjumper 2]

I would have thought that the percentage you quote would have been much, much higher.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

...A lot of people would like to get rid of those programs though, effectively turning us into a third world country that lets its people die in the streets.

You know, this causes angst. On the one hand, you don't want people starving, but on the other you don't want to have to support lazy good-for-nothings....where to draw the line? How do you weed out the good-for-nothings?

Here's a modest proposal to solve the problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

People need food and water to live. If you doubt this visit Sudan, or any other country where people are living in abject poverty.

Hell...you can visit the US for that. After all, we have the highest rate of poverty in the western world. Fortunately though, we have programs in place to keep people from starving. A lot of people would like to get rid of those programs though, effectively turning us into a third world country that lets its people die in the streets.

We also have policies in place that guarantee to keep people in poverty and without adequate health care.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Many of us who want to get rid of government assistance programs don't want to get rid of assistance alltogether.

For example, I think that charities and churches can give aid to the poor far more efficiently than the government does it. I'd rather give my money to the local soup kitchen or habitat for humanity than to the government, because I don't think the government is very responsible with it, and that they have too much of a management overhead. It's not that I don't want to help the poor, it's that I don't think the government is doing a very good job, and that there are people who can do better. I think we should be voluntarily supporting the organizations who can do better, rather than throwing money at an over-large bureaucracy that is inefficient and largely ineffective.

[ReBirth 0]

In a perfect world, that would be great. But, as witnessed in this thread, many people falsely assume than anyone on assistance doesn't deserve help, and therefore wouldn't donate that way. That's why these unfortunately bloated beuracratic programs exist. If not for them, people would literally starve to death in this country. This goes back to my comment that was criticized as being marxist. Pooling resources for the common good.

Many people feel the war in Iraq is justified, that the war on drugs in important. I don't, but my money goes that way because many feel it is important. I feel the war on poverty is important. Some of them think all you need to do is want to work and magically you have a job. Yes, it would be nice to pick and choose which charity your money goes to, but realistically, sometimes those with the most need don't get the most support. Another comment that will probably get me branded as a marxist.

There are social programs necessery to the health and welfare of our citizenry. By definition these social programs are socialist in nature. I believe limited socialism as it relates to benefitting the nation as a whole in providing a barrier from starvation and utter misery is a good thing. Beyond that I'm as capitalist and competetive as the next guy. I just happen to beliieve that every human deserves some basic necessities of life even if we have to sacrifice a little for them.

No matter how stubbornly someone refuses to help themselves, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to them. I would think the Christians here (of which I'm not one) would understand that.

[billvon 2,991]

>I think we should be voluntarily supporting the organizations who
>can do better, rather than throwing money at an over-large
>bureaucracy that is inefficient and largely ineffective.

I agree. But currently those voluntary organizations cannot do the job alone. And while I agree that the government is a bloated and inefficient organization, I would rather people receive minimal aid from that bloated organization than starve to death.

[Nightingale 0]

If people had more money available to them, and knew that the government was not going to provide assistance to the poor, they may be more likely to donate, especially if they get a tax break for doing so. Many people justify their lack of charitable donations by telling themselves that their tax dollars already go to support the poor.

Also, as much as helping the poor is a good thing, I don't think it's the government's right to force people to provide aid to others. It's a decision that each individual should make for themselves.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Cell phones, brand new cars, etc are a LUXURY

Not necessarily. In many cases cell phones are a necessity. If a person is in town shopping, with the cost of gas as it is, isn't it cheaper for them to call home to see if anything is needed?

It's least expensive to plan your shopping ahead of time and buy when items are least expensive.

Quote

As for new cars, many times it is less expensive to finance a new car rather than a used.

It would have been cheaper to finance my least expensive used car ($2000) with a 20% APR credit card cash advance paid off in 5 years than to finance any new car with a 0% 5 year loan.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Also, as much as helping the poor is a good thing, I don't think it's the government's right to force people to provide aid to others. It's a decision that each individual should make for themselves.

"Provide domestic tranquility"
Is there any question that there is a correlation between poverty and crime?

"promote the general welfare"
Is the general welfare promoted if we ignore the adverse effects of poverty?

You are correct, it is not the government's right. The government has no rights. It is, however, the government's responsibility to mitigate the effects off poverty on our society.

Certainly there are better ways of accomplishing that end, but no one wants to ante up the funding to actually educate the poor. They would prefer to keep handing out fish instead of teaching how to fish, because that is less expensive in the immediate short term.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

This goes back to my comment that was criticized as being marxist. Pooling resources for the common good.

If your criticizers studied Marx, they would know that he believed in a government even smaller than the Libertarians want. Marx visualized the end of government, and expected people to take care of each other for no other reason than it being the right thing to do, sort of like Nightingale proposes.

[Nightingale 0]

Exactly.

However, the government has already proved that it doesn't do a very good job at working towards your list of goals. It appears that now, the government should step aside and allow private organizations to step in, because what the government has done in the past and is doing now is not working and is very inefficient.

I'd rather donate money that was going to government programs to local programs that provide low or no cost child care for working low income parents. I'd rather money goes to organizations that actually help people to succeed by providing assistance for education, job searches, and child care than to a government organization that simply sends a check every month. Giving someone cash can reduce the motivation to go out and earn it themselves. However, if we stop providing cash (I don't have as much of an issue with food stamps, although I think they should come with names on them and have ID required to use them) and start providing real assistance, then maybe we can begin to solve the problem. The government seems to prefer to throw money at a problem rather than really try to solve it.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I'd rather donate money that was going to government programs to local programs that provide low or no cost child care for working low income parents. I'd rather money goes to organizations that actually help people to succeed by providing assistance for education, job searches, and child care than to a government organization that simply sends a check every month. Giving someone cash can reduce the motivation to go out and earn it themselves. However, if we stop providing cash (I don't have as much of an issue with food stamps, although I think they should come with names on them and have ID required to use them) and start providing real assistance, then maybe we can begin to solve the problem. The government seems to prefer to throw money at a problem rather than really try to solve it.

Food stamps now come in the form of a debit type card in some states.

I agree that cash is the benefit most likely to be abused. I don't think we can completely eliminate cash assistance, though. It shouldn't be the primary form of assistance, however. Cash provides immediate relief, but in such small amounts does virtually nothing to solve the long term problem.

[ReBirth 0]

Can you tell me what government programs hand out cash?

The gov't has taken on this role because it was NECESSARY. Because the model you propose, and which I said would be great in a perfect world, DIDN'T work. People were literally starving to death. No, it's not perfect now, but at least it's better than it was.

Quick question, do you have any idea what percentage of your tax dollars go to welfare? I think you'll find there are many other gov't programs wasting a lot more money with a lot less redeeming value. Why do people focus on welfare which is LESS THAN 1% OF THE BUDGET?

Please read this http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html and then think about if we should concentrate on cutting spending somewhere else that wouldn't lead to starvation.

You say you don't think the gov't has the RIGHT to tell you who to help with your money. Well, in regard to welfare they're screwing you for about 1%. I don't think the gov't should tell me I have to pay for a war I think is unjust. Yet there goes 35% of my money. So forgive me if I don't sympathize with your plight.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Can you tell me what government programs hand out cash?

The gov't has taken on this role because it was NECESSARY. Because the model you propose, and which I said would be great in a perfect world, DIDN'T work. People were literally starving to death. No, it's not perfect now, but at least it's better than it was.

Quick question, do you have any idea what percentage of your tax dollars go to welfare? I think you'll find there are many other gov't programs wasting a lot more money with a lot less redeeming value. Why do people focus on welfare which is LESS THAN 1% OF THE BUDGET?

Please read this http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html and then think about if we should concentrate on cutting spending somewhere else that wouldn't lead to starvation.

You say you don't think the gov't has the RIGHT to tell you who to help with your money. Well, in regard to welfare they're screwing you for about 1%. I don't think the gov't should tell me I have to pay for a war I think is unjust. Yet there goes 35% of my money. So forgive me if I don't sympathize with your plight.

Stop confusing us with facts, will you.

If people want to believe the undeserving poor are sucking away their wealth, then that's their right in a free country.

Who shall we invade next?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

um... I didn't focus on welfare. The thread drifted that way, and I commented on the topic at hand.

I don't think tax dollars should be used for:
military actions other than defending our own soil, UN supported peacekeeping operations, or action mandated by treaties.
prosecuting victimless crimes or crimes where the only harm is to the perpetrator
capital punishment
religious causes
funding for "the arts"
enforcement of most drug and alcohol laws

and a lot more stuff I can't think of right now. I believe that the main purpose of government is to make sure that everyone can exercise their rights freely and without interference from others. The government is not there to be our parent and take care of us. It's our job to take care of ourselves, and the job of the government to maintain an environment where that is possible.

[ReBirth 0]

Again...in a perfect world I agree with you. But it ain't gonna happen. If we had a completely libertarian gov't the people would organize themselves into geographically convenient groups that pooled their resources. It's what man has done since the dawn of time. We'd end up a nation of city states. Some cities would be better off than others, jealousy and war would then ensue.

Libertarian ideals, capitalist ideals, socialist ideals, anarchist ideals. None of these "ideals" can work in their pure form. They are all self destructive because they are all inherently flawed. They all seek to embody an ideal that goes against human nature. There are pieces of each that are good. We need to incorporate all those good pieces and balance them.

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

But really, let's get back to the lady's hair...

It's actually a pretty standard Penecostal/Holiness hairdo. Pretty standard issue down here in the center of the Bible Belt.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

But really, let's get back to the lady's hair...

It's actually a pretty standard Penecostal/Holiness hairdo. Pretty standard issue down here in the center of the Bible Belt.

-Blind

I figured the length was there for that reason... didn't know the other action on top was too...

(btw, no one still thinks I was being serious about all that hair stuff, right?)

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[tso-d_chris 0]

The average american requires 25 acres of land to grow his food, bury his trash, clean his air, recycle his water etc etc. That means that in that state of Texas you could fit 6.8 million people, or 34% of the people who are actually there. So how do they do it? By using other states (and other countries) to grow food for them.

United States area: 5,984,685 square miles = 3,830,198,400 acres
US population: 295,734,134

Total area per citizen: 12.94 acres.

If Billvon's 25 acre per average American is correct, as quoted above, (I have no reason to disbelieve its validity) the US is already overpopulated.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Now its 18 kids but they are on tv right now and all the ones over 18 are about to make a skydive...

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

Now its 18 kids but they are on tv right now and all the ones over 18 are about to make a skydive...

Now it is 19, but the latest is smaller than a good sized BM.

[jclalor 12]

Just another by-product of fucked up religous nut jobs.

[tkhayes 348]

the Smeaton's in my home town had 23 kids. The Parrott's had 17 or 18

The Russell's had 13 I think.

Who gives a shit

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the Smeaton's in my home town had 23 kids. The Parrott's had 17 or 18. The Russell's had 13 I think.

Yeah, but we're talking about humans, who generally have litters of only one.