[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
re: food stamps
How about…the longer you work, the more “welfare credit” you build up? i.e., you work for X straight years at ONE job, you are guaranteed Y months of welfare in the form of food stamps…if it runs out, you’re back to square one.
[/quote]
We already have that. You work X number of years at any number of jobs and you can save up Y months worth of money to be used in an emergency.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I agree that it is our responsible to look after our brothers and sisters. I also believe it is unconstitutional for our Fed Gov’t to do this for us. [/quote]
Why? Do you equate that with paternalism/forcing something upon people? If so, why not be ok with it as an OPTION?
[/quote]
Why? Becasue it isn’t listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. It’s interesting reading, you ought to try it sometime.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I agree that it is our responsible to look after our brothers and sisters. I also believe it is unconstitutional for our Fed Gov’t to do this for us. [/quote]
Why? Do you equate that with paternalism/forcing something upon people? If so, why not be ok with it as an OPTION?
[/quote]
Why? Becasue it isn’t listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. It’s interesting reading, you ought to try it sometime.[/quote]
Can anyone in this fucking place respond in a civil manner without being a cunt?
(rhetorical, since the answer is obvious)
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Govt should protect and provide welfare for its citizenry. I live here, pay taxes, and vote. You should provide me some options.[/quote]
Based on what? Your “I wanna’s”?[/quote]
See previous response.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
re: food stamps
How about…the longer you work, the more “welfare credit” you build up? i.e., you work for X straight years at ONE job, you are guaranteed Y months of welfare in the form of food stamps…if it runs out, you’re back to square one.
[/quote]
We already have that. You work X number of years at any number of jobs and you can save up Y months worth of money to be used in an emergency. [/quote]
I agree with you to an extent, but you’re taking an extremist view I think. I don’t think any form of welfare should be enough to just get by on, it should be a safety cushion that’s temporary.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I agree that it is our responsible to look after our brothers and sisters. I also believe it is unconstitutional for our Fed Gov’t to do this for us. [/quote]
Why? Do you equate that with paternalism/forcing something upon people? If so, why not be ok with it as an OPTION?
[/quote]
Why? Becasue it isn’t listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. It’s interesting reading, you ought to try it sometime.[/quote]
Can anyone in this fucking place respond in a civil manner without being a cunt?
(rhetorical, since the answer is obvious)[/quote]
How is that being a cunt? You asked a question that has an obvious answer to anyone who understands the Constitution. I simply answered it.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Govt should protect and provide welfare for its citizenry. I live here, pay taxes, and vote. You should provide me some options.[/quote]
Based on what? Your “I wanna’s”?[/quote]
See previous response.[/quote]
That was a serious question. You think the Gov’t should take care of people, what is that opinion based on? Is it just based on your feelings?
One is required to feed the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, harboring the harborless, visiting the sick, ransoming captives, and burying the dead.
So, although I do not believe that the government is in position to do this, the family then the local community is responsible for taking care of the sick. And, as well Doctors who have talent should give their talent or at least treasure to help with the sick.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers. [/quote]
I’d rather see tougher measures in place to ensure the welfare system is not abused (or at least not as much as it is now) than to see it go away - I mean shit if it’s to the point where we’re paying for the poor to breed then gov-t must be giving them too much.
I am all for empowering the States vs. the Feds, so no argument there.
As for the single mom family - my point exactly, just shows the asinine nature of conclusions in that report.
[/quote]
So it’s just a coinsidence that nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates? And yes, there is a significant difference in single mothers who earn their living and those who get it via gov’t handout. As the Maryland NAACP puts it, “A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job.”
[/quote]
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers. [/quote]
I’d rather see tougher measures in place to ensure the welfare system is not abused (or at least not as much as it is now) than to see it go away - I mean shit if it’s to the point where we’re paying for the poor to breed then gov-t must be giving them too much.
I am all for empowering the States vs. the Feds, so no argument there.
As for the single mom family - my point exactly, just shows the asinine nature of conclusions in that report.
[/quote]
So it’s just a coinsidence that nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates? And yes, there is a significant difference in single mothers who earn their living and those who get it via gov’t handout. As the Maryland NAACP puts it, “A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job.”
[/quote]
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers. [/quote]
I’d rather see tougher measures in place to ensure the welfare system is not abused (or at least not as much as it is now) than to see it go away - I mean shit if it’s to the point where we’re paying for the poor to breed then gov-t must be giving them too much.
I am all for empowering the States vs. the Feds, so no argument there.
As for the single mom family - my point exactly, just shows the asinine nature of conclusions in that report.
[/quote]
So it’s just a coinsidence that nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates? And yes, there is a significant difference in single mothers who earn their living and those who get it via gov’t handout. As the Maryland NAACP puts it, “A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job.”
[/quote]
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[/quote]
I think you have the causal relationship backwards. The fatherless households are a result of the welfare, which then leads to poverty, and high crime.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[/quote]
I think you have the causal relationship backwards. The fatherless households are a result of the welfare, which then leads to poverty, and high crime.[/quote]
fatherless households in already poor, crime-ridden areas that is.
saying “welfare makes them poor and violent” is like saying “pills make people sick”.
You’re causal relationships are also backwards, the reason for the fatherless homes and the entitlement mindset is symptoms of moral decay not a cause of each other.
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.
[quote]limburg wrote:
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.[/quote]
Fixing the symptom, won’t solve the problem.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[/quote]
I think you have the causal relationship backwards. The fatherless households are a result of the welfare, which then leads to poverty, and high crime.[/quote]
fatherless households in already poor, crime-ridden areas that is.
saying “welfare makes them poor and violent” is like saying “pills make people sick”.
[/quote]
Fatherless households leads to more crime, regardless of income.
Crime and poverty: The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.
The Main Thing: The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.
Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990
Examples: Teenage fathers are more likely than their childless peers to commit and be convicted of illegal activity, and their offenses are of a more serious nature.
Source: M.A. Pirog-Good, “Teen Father and the Child Support System,” in Paternity Establishment, Institute for research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin. 1992
The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O’Neill, “Underclass Behaviors in the United States,” CUNY, Baruch College. 1993
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re causal relationships are also backwards, the reason for the fatherless homes and the entitlement mindset is symptoms of moral decay not a cause of each other.[/quote]
There’s a lot of truth there.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[/quote]
I think you have the causal relationship backwards. The fatherless households are a result of the welfare, which then leads to poverty, and high crime.[/quote]
fatherless households in already poor, crime-ridden areas that is.
saying “welfare makes them poor and violent” is like saying “pills make people sick”.
[/quote]
Fatherless households leads to more crime, regardless of income.
…
[/quote]
but we’re talking welfare here, which means we’re talking about ppl with low income.
that said - and back to this thread’s topic - if welfare which today consists of gov-t issued checks, food stamps, subsidized housing etc is allowing the poor breed more poverty instead of letting them get by - cut the cash/food stamps and divert the funds into basic healthcare needs like I said before.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Of course it’s not a coincidence, the point is that there’s a difference between single mother who can afford being single because she works and single mother who can afford being single because of welfare.
Care to explain what causes the difference?
[/quote]
Sure, because those that grow up in a welfare supported home are never taught that you have to work for the things you want. They never learn responsibility and never acquire the self-respect that comes from earning a living.[/quote]
talk about a circumstantial explanation.
but since you went down this path I’ll provide mine - the reality is that welfare-supported households are predominantly located in poor, high-crime areas, with a high number of “fatherless” households.
force a working, non-welfare leeching single mother of 3 to move to such neighborhood - chances of her kids committing a crime would go up no matter what she teaches them by her own example.
[/quote]
I think you have the causal relationship backwards. The fatherless households are a result of the welfare, which then leads to poverty, and high crime.[/quote]
fatherless households in already poor, crime-ridden areas that is.
saying “welfare makes them poor and violent” is like saying “pills make people sick”.
[/quote]
Fatherless households leads to more crime, regardless of income.
…
[/quote]
but we’re talking welfare here, which means we’re talking about ppl with low income.
that said - and back to this thread’s topic - if welfare which today consists of gov-t issued checks, food stamps, subsidized housing etc is allowing the poor breed more poverty instead of letting them get by - cut the cash/food stamps and divert the funds into basic healthcare needs like I said before.
[/quote]
And my question is what gives the gov’t the right to take money out of my pocket and give it to others, whether in the form of food stamps of health care?