It's about god damn time!!!!

[Disclaimer]

Let 'em shit bricks. All of them. AIG included. No job? Twelve kids? Get rid of your cell phone and the Lexus. Quit buying the $100.00 sneakers for the kids. Public Housing? You can stay here for a year, then you're out. Cut it to the bone, and if it doesn't "light a fire under their collective asses", too bad.

Ok, then what after a year? Still gotta pay the coroner to come sweep their sorry asses up off the streets if they can't hang.

We have created it - never said we didn't. Its time to stop it, or a least make it a hell of a lot more difficult for it to perpetuate itself.

Your assumption is that all low income parents are bad parents. Is that really the stance you're going to take?

We all make choices. Again, if you decided on an investment with greater risk, that's your problem. Your bad decision doesn't bother me in the least. You can pay your bills? Boo-Fucking-hoo. Everyone has the same opportunity. If my costs go up, they go up. Thats the way it works.

So, you're telling me, that you'd rather it be shitty for everyone and slightly less shitty for you, than for it to be a win-win for everyone? Ok, what about this scenario, you keep your money in a savings account at 2%, while the people invested their retirement in the market and achieved a personal rate of return somewhere around 7%. What if your money runs out before you die? Should the 7% earners have to pay for you? It's really easy to say "Boo-fucking-hoo" to everyone, until you're the one out of money at 70 years old.

Sure they do. Whats wrong with that? You want better doctors, better access, better networks? Work harder, invent something, do SOMETHING to make your life better. You have the same opportunity as everyone else.

Now you're back tracking, first it was rich people can just buy "more shit" - now you agree there's other opportunities and things they have access to. Work harder? You can only work so many hours in a week. Most white collar are salary-based anyway, so it doesn't matter HOW many hours you put in, you're paid what you're paid. So, how do you "work harder" to earn more in that case? Ha, and invent something... like it's just so easy. Wave my hand and *poof* a magical marketable invention will just appear. "Just invent something, duh! You'll be rich." You ever been through the patent process? If you're poor, where are you getting the funds to bankroll your invention? You really don't think your proposed solutions and issues through if you think it's just that easy. I can't believe that you think you have the same opportunities as everyone else because that simply isn't true. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's just not true.

Guess you missed the whole ACORN thing. That class is there, they are LARGE and the vote Democrat....oddly enough, the same people that want to give everything to everybody. Hmmmm......

What's LARGE? They have 400,000 members... less people than the city of Cleveland. 300M in the US, 400k members...so about 0.1% of the US population. Yep, totally LARGE. Even if each one of them convince 10 people to vote democrat, that's 4M people, or 1% of the population...Hmmmm.....

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342

[robhawk]

I "LOL" at your avatar every time I see it Isaac.

[jhl385]

As mentioned in an earlier post, these benefits are OPTIONAL !! If you don't want to abide, don't ask for the help. "They" can change the rules and do often. This would save the state a TON of money.

[blacktalon606]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

Sir, I love you. Lol.

I agree, but at least it's the first step in the right direction for a bass akwards system. In my opinion, there is no person in this country who deseves a FREE ride. Everyone can do something. Why can't a mother with 19 kids answer calls from a remote terminal or file papers at home? The government pays people to do that stuff... but they are already paying these ass hats and getting nothing for it.

[blacktalon606]

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

But if the irresponsible people all refust to work, and we LET THEM STARVE TO DEATH... there won't be anymore irresponsible people. Then, the money they used to get, could be rolled back into programs with a positive return... which would help economics!!

[blacktalon606]

Economics have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Let them starve - we'll have to pay people to pickup the bodies

Sterilize them - we'll have to pay people to perform the operation

Put them on welfare - we pay for that

Those that don't want to starve, it'll be survival of the fittest, they'll steal for it - we'll pay for that (prison and insurance)

Shoot them dead for stealing - See #1

I've went ahead and bolded the cheapest option for you.

Picking up the body- $15 an hour to pay some dude to pick up the body, once.

Sterilizing them- $2500, once.

Thieves- Shoot them with your .45. $0.50 + $15 an hour = $15.50

Putting them on welfare- $17k per year X 40 years X 8 kids + $5500 per year per kid medical = $7,880,000 per family... but these people multiply exponentially. Yeah... that's a lot cheaper...

[blacktalon606]

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

Citation needed... (that's not your wikipedia article)

[blacktalon606]

I've already proven that welfare is cheaper than prison, can we agree on that? If you REALLY want me to dig up the old thread, I'll find it. But, I think it's logical that we can agree that the costs of supervising people > costs of people supervising themselves and spending money in society (albeit not their own money).

So, that boils it down to whether it's cheaper for welfare or cleaning up dead bodies. That might take some digging (ha, see what I did there?), but you realize there are tons of intangible costs and opportunity costs to cleaning up dead bodies - not to mention health/hygiene issues, which will undoubtedly drive the costs up. And since it's illegal to kill people, we can't setup gas chambers or something much more efficient - we have to let people starve or off themselves (via crime, suicide, etc) on their own. I could keep going, but suffice to say there's a HOST of more corollary issues that all cost money because SOMEONE has to do them to maintain a productive society.

I could probably keep stacking costs until I meet the welfare threshold if that's really what you want. Though it'd be just as easy to ask you to prove that welfare ISN'T the cheapest option? If you can, you should pitch it to the gov't - they don't spend money just because, I'm sure they'll be completely interesting in any cost-savings ideas you have because that means more money for tanks and bombs and A10s.

As much as we hate on policies, the majority of them aren't enacted without SOME thought (at least at the Federal level), usually by people much better versed on the topic than any of us. We can question them, we can suggest modifications once they because outdated to the society, but I don't think welfare falls into that yet.

You sir, have never proven shit. You give us platitudes and feelings, but facts are something you always lack. You ask for citations but give only shit yourself. You should really take an economics class.

[SAMBUSA]

I took Economics. It sucked ass

[blacktalon606]

I took Economics. It sucked ass

No shit! That and stats were the worst.

[Disclaimer]

Picking up the body- $15 an hour to pay some dude to pick up the body, once.

Sterilizing them- $2500, once.

Thieves- Shoot them with your .45. $0.50 + $15 an hour = $15.50

Putting them on welfare- $17k per year X 40 years X 8 kids + $5500 per year per kid medical = $7,880,000 per family... but these people multiply exponentially. Yeah... that's a lot cheaper...

I appreciate your thorough analysis and associated costs along with where you pulled those numbers (though I wouldn't count 'my ass' as a valid source). At $245/wk unemployment - that's less than $1000/mo, so your $17k figure is off by 41%. Thanks for playing.

http://www.city-data.com/states/Ohio-Social-welfare.html

Sterilization = $250 for a vasectomy. Why penalize poor women, when it's cheaper to snip a guy? Especially if you force taxpayers to pay for it.

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sterilization/a/sterilizhisorhe_3.htm

Yea, and the ONLY costs with letting the welfare PUNISHER roam the streets and trailer parks for deadbeats is only his hourly salary and bullets? Gimme a break.

Just like Todd, you're ASSUMING all poor parents are bad parents.

You sir, have never proven shit. You give us platitudes and feelings, but facts are something you always lack. You ask for citations but give only shit yourself. You should really take an economics class.

Really? How'd you do in econ prof Talon? You should read a dictionary. Explain how you dismiss everything as platitudes and feelings, when:

Welfare IS cheaper than prison. Fact.

There are intangible and otherwise opportunity costs associated with letting society members starve to death. Fact. I even provided a link to the health care costs associated with the homeless in a case study.

There are people debating this and making policy decisions that are better informed than any of us. Fact.

So, where do the platitudes and feelings come in?

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/03/nyregion/trying-to-cut-welfare-the-ohio-way.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

A Case Western Reserve University study of the impact of Mr. Voinovich's cuts in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, found that virtually the same percentage of able-bodied welfare recipients were employed before and after they were forced off the rolls, indicating that welfare recipients either were unsuccessful in looking for jobs or did not seek them. The study also found only a slight increase in the percentage of people who did not have permanent housing, from 23 percent to 27 percent.

Once again proving my case that you can't light a fire under peoples asses no matter what the external stimulus.

So far I've provided 3 citations of reading material, which you likely haven't read. You've provided nothing but your opinions of MY opinions, and contributed nothing of substance to this debate.

[InyaAzz]

[kawi kid]

Who cleans the interstates?

i was going with the office buildings but the roads are done by the adopt a highway program or criminals doing comunity service.

[robhawk]

Once again proving my case that you can't light a fire under peoples asses no matter what the external stimulus.

My only question is, economics aside, is why should we pay for these lazy ass people that do not contribute to society? I work for a living, served my country, fought in a war, and I bust my ass daily still. I'm tired of paying for lazy sacks or crap that do nothing but use resources. It’s the principal of it all for me, I don’t want my country paying for lazy sacks of crap that don’t care about it enough to contribute anything. There should be no free rides for anyone; individuals in this country feel they are owed something by it. This is BS and needs to stop, they need to get up and help or GTFO! I personally will pay extra to get rid of them all, I don’t care about all the hippy rights BS for lazy people. My country does not owe them shit and I would love to see the day when they learn that, there is always a job anywhere, pay might not be great but you can survive. The whole excuse that the will starve and steal is moot, because that just comes back to them being lazy and not wanting to work, or feeling that they are better then a certain job. Sorry if I piss people off but I love my country and hate the asshats that just suck up its resources and never give anything back. Like I said before, the military is always hiring and will provide a good life, but the individuals were talking about are too damn lazy to make the commitment.

[fusion]

[Todd#43]

Just like Todd, you're ASSUMING all poor parents are bad parents.

We covered this already. I didn't assume that all poor parents are bad parents, although the DO perpetuate the dependency class.

There are people debating this and making policy decisions that are better informed than any of us. Fact.

Who are these "better informed people" you speak of? Are they the same ones that "didn't know AIG was going to be paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses?

You've provided nothing but your opinions of MY opinions, and contributed nothing of substance to this debate.

Thats statement says a lot. (emphasis added)

[Disclaimer]

Difference is - my opinions are backed up by information obtained from various sources... not just how I feel about things.

[Cdubyah]

Here.

The facts of government assistance in Ohio. The breakdown is by county.

http://jfs.ohio.gov/county/cntypro/index.stm

[robhawk]

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

President Johnson's focus was on giving the poor a "hand up" not a "hand out." In his first speech announcing the War on Poverty, Johnson stated, "the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others." Instead, the plan was to give the poor the behavioral skills and values necessary to escape from both poverty and dependence. Johnson sought to address the "the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

And many more facts and info on the subject from:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

[Disclaimer]

Here.

The facts of government assistance in Ohio. The breakdown is by county.

http://jfs.ohio.gov/county/cntypro/index.stm

Great link. Rep for you.

[Disclaimer]

And many more facts and info on the subject from:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's funny how these sites mix and match facts and figures to make them impressively misleading, for instance:

Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

So what!? Who cares? What purpose does that statement serve?

GDP per capita (yr. 1900) = $4096

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900

GDP per capita (yr. 2000) = $37,267

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_con_2000_us_percap-constant-2000-us-per-capita

The GDP is over 9x what it was, and why are we comparing a WHOLE to a part?

If Johnson returned today to see the size of the current welfare state he would be deeply shocked.

Now we're putting words in peoples' mouths.

It's also funny to see all the comparisions throughout the article, I don't know if it just the author trying to communicate the "vastness" of welfare by comparing WWII expenditures to welfare expenditures, but what purpose does that really serve?

And where are these "Appendix A and Appendix B" that the article cites to getting a lot of their number information - they aren't linked anywhere? The other "citations" are pretty much meaningless...

President George W. Bush's recent budget blueprint does not contain sufficient detail to permit projections of welfare spending program by program.3

So you cite a document just to say it doesn't contain enough information?

And the author concludes that welfare is due to single parenthood...really? So, the goal is force people into unhappy marriages then... got it.

Other than increasing conventional welfare spending year after year, we should change the foundations of the welfare system. Policy makers should embrace three basic goals.

1. We should seek to limit the future growth of aggregate means-tested welfare spending to the rate of inflation or slower.
   
2. We should require welfare recipients to perform community service work as a condition of receiving aid along the lines of the TANF program operating in Wisconsin.
   
3. We should support programs which foster and sustain marriage rather than subsidizing single parenthood. In addition, we should reduce the anti-marriage penalties implicit in the welfare system
   

If that article isn't slanted, I don't know what you want to call it... but it's basically right along the lines of what sourcewatch said...Limited government, traditional American values (straight out of the 1950s), and strong defense (warhawks). Edited March 27, 2009 by JRMMiii

[SAMBUSA]

[robhawk]

free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense

What’s wrong with those ideas?

Not saying I agree with everything from the site, but they pull their info from all the same sources you call credible, the government.

You have one political view, I have another, they will never meet, and so be it.

So you cite a document just to say it doesn't contain enough information?

Now your putting words in peoples mouths, I presented information and that is all, anyone can do with it what they want. The numbers and stats from that site are just that, facts. Prove the figures wrong and then come talk, how they are worded and put together is purely political view, as is anything.

[kawi kid]

Here.

The facts of government assistance in Ohio. The breakdown is by county.

http://jfs.ohio.gov/county/cntypro/index.stm

how did you find that

[Disclaimer]

What’s wrong with those ideas?

On the surface, nothing... but how the "right" formulates cause-and-effect relationships to attack the root causes of these issues to strive for those ideals is what's off-the-wall to me.

Not saying I agree with everything from the site, but they pull their info from all the same sources you call credible, the government.

Funny, the rest of my post will show otherwise...

You have one political view, I have another, they will never meet, and so be it.

...I presented information and that is all, anyone can do with it what they want. The numbers and stats from that site are just that, facts. Prove the figures wrong and then come talk, how they are worded and put together is purely political view, as is anything.

I just asked... there's no link to where the site pulls their numbers.

They quote these mysterious 'Appendix A' and 'Appendix B' documents that don't exist? So, I can't confirm their numbers or the source where they pulled them from.

Take this graphic for instance:

"State outlay figures calculated by the author"...regardless of the "calculations" - it's an apples to oranges comparison. You're lumping in State and Federal welfare against Federal defense. You can compare State+Federal to State+Federal, or State to State, or Federal to Federal, but not State+Federal to Federal, what does that comparison show?

And the chart also communicates the idea that we spend more on welfare than we do on Defense... again, not true. Which is WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK NUMBERS.

All the numbers in blue are ACTUAL spending numbers

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2007_0.html

Defense (FY 2007): 653.9B

Welfare (FY 2007): 254.2B

So, now who's numbers do I trust? Heritage foundation or this other website, where I can click through and see exactly where they pulled the numbers from GOVERNMENT sources?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/art8_how_we_got_the_data_for_usgovernmentspendingcom.html

Edited March 27, 2009 by JRMMiii