Wolfie

So basically, what you are saying it is perfectly fine to punish me for something I did not do?

Revan

I wonder wolfie, what if you had kids and suddenly lost your job. Wouldn't it than mean that all the money you have paid into the welfare program is returned back to you because you now have no alternative but to go on welfare?

Does it not than mean that all the other people are paying for you until you find another job? and what if it takes you a year or more before you get back on your feet?

Quarath

Sorry, but Government subsidized educational loans are welfare. I would agree for private loans but These subsidized student loans make it possible for those who could not otherwise go to school to be able to attend school and become a contribution to the society rather thatn a drain on it.. These loans are available to those who would never qualify for a private bank loan for education.

__________________
"they're more like guidelines, than actual rules,"....Captain Barbossa - Pirates of the Caribbean

DudeMan

no actually it would mean the govenrment chops his bollocks off and surgically removes his wifes womb.....

hmm different story then.

plus wolfie i have suggested reforms but i wholly disagree with your statement of the treatment you have suggested...to people who may not be there fault.

and what wintermute said about the 6moth program similar to whats being implimented here.

by the way thats patriotism for you but if you went into a majour war alot of the army would be made up from the poor... but you wont complain then. when these people give their life for your country.

Wolfie

Losing your job and having to go on welfare is one thing.

Having a child while you are on welfare is another thing entirely different. Can we please stick to my original topic?

Geisha

Nope. First he gets a little of the Unemployment money he's been paying into for the last 6-10 years. During that time he lives off his savings and finds another job. I don't agree with sterilization, and a friend recently convinced me that I do have a duty to support public schools that I'm not using, but it's not really viable to appeal to someone like Wolfie or I that we might need Welfare someday because with our skills and self-motivation it's wildly unlikely. Give me reasons to support Welfare - there are deserving people out there who I am willing to temporarily supplement and there are military veterans that I am willing to support completely - but don't just make an emotional appeal that I should pay Welfare because I might need it. I am the kind of person who will work at anything so that I won't need true Welfare, and I pay into disability insurance policies to cover me if I can't work at all. "Because I might need it" isn't an argument that can work under all conditions for all people in the United States; most people never will and many people have better chances of winning the lottery than qualifying for Welfare. To Wolfie's orginal inflammatory post, I repeat that I would prefer to crack down on habitual freeloaders and see some policy reform than eliminate Welfare entirely. And I'd still rather overhaul Social Security than Welfare.

Revan

well then wolfie, lets put it the other way around. You just lost your job .. ended up on welfare and oooops.. your wife (if you have one) gets pregnant. You still feel comfortable about finding a job so yo decide to carry on with the pregnancy. However things turn out sour, you just cannot find a job since you do not have good qualifications....

even looking at it from a different perspective... those people who are currently on welfare.. didn't their parents also pay all the money to the goverment to know that their child when he grows up can get money back from welfare if he is out of the job? and to be able to have children even if he is not working? what about his brother or a sister who are also paying money coz they work? don't you think that their money is not being used for his welfare?

I am not saying all people on welfare are fair play, some are having other problems and cannot hod down the job because of addictions or whatever.. some cannot reason with themselves wether and accident of getting pregnant should be carried to term or not... such people are minority and you cannot blame the other reasonable people who do the best they can with what they've got even if they are on welfare.

Besides. As far as I'm concerned, I do not mind having my money given to a single mother to stay at home and raise her child properly, altho I do mind having both perants not doing anything. Truth is that single mothers tend to work 2 jobs to support the child and give him all they can. It is very hard not to be discriminatory toward certain group of people in the circumstances that you are talking about.

DudeMan

Excuse me but nobody has depoarted from the original topic whehter you have a child while on welfare or have a child then go on welfare your original point was why should you have to pay for that chilld.

so effectivly what you are suggesting in legal terms is that if you have a child when you work in macdonalds, 2 days after its born go on welfare and no intrusive surgery is needed. sounds kind of crap doesnt it, because the same family who had a chilld when they didnt have some crappy job 2 days before would be mutilated by the government just so that little wolfie taxes would go down a bit.

wolfie you seem to me to be a malcontent of classic proportions, you seem to only believe the worst in human nature and seek to punish those worse off than your self because its their fault they are there. the truth is and i fear history proves me right that the reason the poor stay poor is because thats the way the bourgeoisie ( the rulling class) prefer it.

now you want to chop their bollocks off aswell.

luna

I am having a hard time finding a piece of information that I think would be valuable to this conversation; Maybe you guys have some better ideas on where to find it. I am curious to see just how much of the american tax dollar goes to supporting welfare specifically (not Social Security or unemployment, for example). I have yet to find a reliable source making a reasonable claim as to how much we really all put into the system. I ask this because if we are paying say, 30 cents of every tax dollar to welfare, that would really be a sacrifice for the population. If on the other hand we are paying 1/10 of a penny for each tax dollar, there is very little to complain about.

Anyone have a reliable source with this information?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

TheFeniX

Finding actual hard numbers would be difficult at best.

That said: Every tax penny you pay is sent into one big pool of money that agencies take "chunks" out of. Therefore, just because you pay school taxes, doesn't mean all that money goes into the state schools.

This is a major issue with Social Security because (last I checked) they were almost to the point where we would be spending more to support the elderly than was actually paid to SS. That would mean budgets cuts in other places to make up for it. Because of this big money "pool," it's much harder to track where the money goes.

Of course, the AARP could not care less about that.

luna

Understood, but we DO have budget plans, as well as records of what group gets what chunk annually. We might not be able to get current numbers, but we should be able to get years previous, after the money is physically spent.

Or at least, I'd like to THINK we could.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

Geisha

Welfare spending - WARNING source is a conservative-supported research site:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Wel...est030701b.cfm

Also from that article:
I'm searching various Budget Reports for those labels and having trouble, I'll post again when I find something:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/manag...rts/index.html

Also an interesting summary of the whole history of our tax system:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...xes/ustax.html

luna

More from that article:

So that includes programs mentioned in another thread (I think) about health care for all people in need as well as helping improve people's lives through job training and education. Very interesting. Granted, the source is rather biased, but these look like hard numbers.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

luna

Allow me to add my two cents regarding the original statement you made, Wolfie.

I have been pondering a reply to you for a few days now, unsure of how to approach the topic. Firstly, I think that while your desire to leave parenting to those who are "qualified" is a good cause, it is wholly lacking in compassion, understanding, and room for growth for the individuals you are condemning.

I think that you are leaving out the majority of folks who need help for short periods of time, who fully intend to be productive members of society. Considering you are only allowed to collect for 5 years maximum, regardless of additional children, I'm not entirely sure you know what the welfare dollar goes to; nor am I sure that you know just how tiny the welfare dollar really is to these families. Where I live, I can easily say that the monthly benefit amount doesn't even begin to pay for a roof over your head, much less food, diapers, utilities, and the other everyday expenses.

Second, I think it is absolutely out of line to honestly suggest that any couple who has a child while on welfare be neutered. What happens if this couple uses their experience as a parent to better their lives and goes on to earn a substantial income? Are they not entitled at that point to have another child? Does their poor decision at one point in their life need to completely remove their ability to reproduce at any time in the future?

I am a single mother. I had my son 7 years ago, as a young mother (do the math). If your system were in place, I would have had my reproductive future stripped from me before I was even 20 years old. Now here I am many years later in a much more stable, happy and adult life. My decision as a young woman to have my son and raise him was the best decision of my life. I grew up fast, and led my life with a purpose- to give my son the best opportunities, and raise him properly regardless of my past foolishness. Now that I have worked my tail off to be a productive member of society, have raised my son properly and am in a long term, very happy relationship, am I not entitled to the same reproductive rights as the next adult? Is your tax penny so valuable to you that you would be willing to sacrifice my future family to save a buck or two?

Just something to consider.

We don't require sex offenders to have themselves neutered. Why should someone in need be of any less value?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

DudeMan

HERE HERE

argue that one wolfie... perspnal experience can be the best way to explain... but you saving 5 dollars a week on your wage means that peoples freedom is taken away.,.. no thanks ill pay 10 dollars.