Well, usually when people are on welfare and food stamps they are DEPENDANT on the GOV to give them money. So yes they are in charge. You of the logic that people may do as they please with everybody elses money. There is so much abuse of the system, that it is now a lifestyle passed from generation to generation, why do you think that 14,15,16 year old in welfare families get pregnant so often??? Because they see their parent get rewarded (money) when they have a kid. I would say its a good assumption that if you are on welfare and you have children (that you can not afford) yes you are a bad parent because you don't have the means to meet the basic needs for that child. That is terrible parenting.
Saying its discrimination is absurd, thats like saying its discrimination to children, by making your children brush their teeth. If you can't afford to take care of your self or family and you have to rely on the gov for basic needs, you aren't in any place to tell them what they can and can't do. If they want to drug test and thats part of the welfare process then they must do that, if they don't like it, they can get job.
Do you yell at homeless people and panhandlers, by chance?
So many stereotypes and blanket statements in your post that I don't even know where to begin.
No social good could come of this bill. It would just harm innocent, already-disadvantaged children. Do YOU want to harm innocent children? I know I don't.
Is it better to just let the kids continue being raised by drug users? Plenty of kids already get taken away from their parents. Hopefully this will bring their parent's problems to light a bit earlier.
This bill is not about kids being raised by drug users. It doesn't say anything about kids being taken away from their parents if their parents are drug users. If they wanted kids to not be raised by drug users, they would create a bill that addressed that problem - for ALL children being raised by drug users, not just the ones who receive food stamps. This bill in no way promotes the welfare of children. Its entire point is to deny the government assistance that feeds children.
The "bad apples" cause inconvenience for EVERYBODY in the world, no matter what their economic or social standing happens to be.
No they don't. I've never met anyone who's been inconvenienced by someone choosing to smoke weed, or take ecstacy, or LSD at the weekend. It's never bothered me or anyone I've ever known, ever.
At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.
The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.
I took some numbers out because I did not want to quote it the whole thing
but they seem high 350 billion a year, not sure about that plus since we have no idea how many illegal citizens there are it is kinda hard to how much they cost the government...... they are estimates at best.
on a another note, if this legislation passed.... what would they do about alcohol, grandpa's cough syrup is probably the worst of all the drugs and very destructive to the family unit... and legal
You still didn't address my comments about why it is discrimination. Drugs are illegal no matter what economic status or program you are or are not on... so why is it ok to drug test an entire group of people who are in need of assistance when there's no factual proof of an overabundance of drug users (other than some's personal belief - ie no facts proving it)? Don't know about you, but most of the people I know and see in society who abuses drugs or alcohol are working class people not on assistance programs. And lastly, you keep insinuating that poor people on assistance are solely there because of their own choice or vastly overemphasize they're abusing the system. Can you provide some actual facts and details proving or showing this? To be blunt, generalizations and bias don't equate to fact, which is pretty much the summation of your argument.
Also, why is the implication that the "poor" or people in need of assistance are the only ones who are bad parents or on drugs? A pretty skewed bias to being with on this topic to begin with right?
Well, usually when people are on welfare and food stamps they are DEPENDANT on the GOV to give them money. So yes they are in charge. You of the logic that people may do as they please with everybody elses money. There is so much abuse of the system, that it is now a lifestyle passed from generation to generation, why do you think that 14,15,16 year old in welfare families get pregnant so often??? Because they see their parent get rewarded (money) when they have a kid. I would say its a good assumption that if you are on welfare and you have children (that you can not afford) yes you are a bad parent because you don't have the means to meet the basic needs for that child. That is terrible parenting.
Saying its discrimination is absurd, thats like saying its discrimination to children, by making your children brush their teeth. If you can't afford to take care of your self or family and you have to rely on the gov for basic needs, you aren't in any place to tell them what they can and can't do. If they want to drug test and thats part of the welfare process then they must do that, if they don't like it, they can get job.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
You still didn't address my comments about why it is discrimination. Drugs are illegal no matter what economic status or program you are or are not on... so why is it ok to drug test an entire group of people who are in need of assistance when there's no factual proof of an overabundance of drug users (other than some's personal belief - ie no facts proving it)? Don't know about you, but most of the people I know and see in society who abuses drugs or alcohol are working class people not on assistance programs. And lastly, you keep insinuating that poor people on assistance are solely there because of their own choice or vastly overemphasize they're abusing the system. Can you provide some actual facts and details proving or showing this? To be blunt, generalizations and bias don't equate to fact, which is pretty much the summation of your argument.
SO its discrimination when my employer randomly selects me to get a drug test??? Because its illegal right... :roll: And there is plenty of proof that women on welfare abuse illegal drugs more. ALmost every link I looked at said this. And thats fine if the working class people you know are doing drugs, they are using their money to do that, But welfare receipients are using tax money provided to them for basic need living. I am trying to figure out how people on assistance are not there on their own choice... We live in a country that has free education, which provides free books and all school supplies, free clothes, and Colleges now lower the enterance grade/scores for poor minorities, much moreso than whites/Asians. So they have all the avenues to succeed, at what point is it not their responsibility?
There is so much abuse of the system, that it is now a lifestyle passed from generation to generation, why do you think that 14,15,16 year old in welfare families get pregnant so often??? Because they see their parent get rewarded (money) when they have a kid. I would say its a good assumption that if you are on welfare and you have children (that you can not afford) yes you are a bad parent because you don't have the means to meet the basic needs for that child. That is terrible parenting.
Is this your opinion?.. are there any facts on this?
I was under the impression that teenage pregnancy (of the poor/welfare) is mostly from lack of education (sex-ed) and inability to get proper contraceptives.
Just my opnion, but I cant see this blanket statement being correct that extremely poor people see it as a reward to get prego at 15.. maybe some do. but I'm pretty sure they dont put too much thought into becoming pregnant. 'Accidental' is the key word here I think.
Is this your opinion?.. are there any facts on this?
I was under the impression that teenage pregnancy (of the poor/welfare) is mostly from lack of education (sex-ed) and inability to get proper contraceptives.
Just my opnion, but I cant see this blanket statement being correct that extremely poor people see it as a reward to get prego at 15.. maybe some do. but I'm pretty sure they dont put too much thought into becoming pregnant. 'Accidental' is the key word here I think.
"It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse." Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..." In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood."
10.
The illegal aliens in the United States
have a crime rate that's two and a half
times that of white non-illegal aliens.
In particular, their children are going
to make a huge additional crime
problem in the U.S.
11.
During the year of 2005, there were 4
to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that
crossed our Southern Border, also,
as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds
of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the US from
the Southern border.
Verify
at: Homeland Security Report:
12.
The National policy Institute estimated
that the total cost of mass deportation
would be between $206 and $230 billion
or an average cost of between $41 and
$46 billion annually over a five year
period.
The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.
more than half of these "links" can't be opened
and the ones that can seem to be very biased
anyway
even if all of these numbers are true
what is the right thing to do?
what would your "jesus" do?
i would rather feed and educate anyone on this planet
than start unnecessary wars that cost much more than the numbers sold to us in this article
just look at the future estimates regarding the healthcare of the injured vets
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Is this your opinion?.. are there any facts on this?
I was under the impression that teenage pregnancy (of the poor/welfare) is mostly from lack of education (sex-ed) and inability to get proper contraceptives.
Just my opnion, but I cant see this blanket statement being correct that extremely poor people see it as a reward to get prego at 15.. maybe some do. but I'm pretty sure they dont put too much thought into becoming pregnant. 'Accidental' is the key word here I think.
"It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse." Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..." In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood."
"Professors Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway of the University of Ohio, found that, if you compare two individuals with incomes below the poverty level, an individual who does not receive welfare is two and a half times more likely to be out of poverty the next year than an individual who receives welfare."
come on man, just cause Eds Uncle says it... haha, just kiddin.
I dont think getting rid of welfare is a good idea, like the autor of this article states, but he does at least propose some interesting alternatives ,ie Establish a Dollar-for-Dollar Tax Credit for Contributions to Private Charity.
As this is a hypothetical argument, it seems to be falling into the typical liberal vs. conservative viewpoints. But consider this point: All drugs slow you down. Some more then others, but even weed slows down your mental performance and erodes your motivation.
If you are in such dire need of assistance that food stamps are required, drug use is the one of the worst activities to participate in. So how about this proposal:
* Drug tests required for government assistance
* If a person fails they have two options
1) No more assistance OR
2) Enroll in a rehab program / classes and assistance continues as long as attendance requirement are met.
It is very hard for some people to overcome their addictions, especially on a moments notice. Ending food assistance could be devastating, especially if the user is severely addicted. But if there is motivation to seek treatment, maybe some people will be able to get their heads on straight and make something out of their lives.
I imagine once a person is drug-free and their heads clear up, they will be able to take control of their lives and get to a point where government assistance is no longer required.
Does this appease both conservative and liberal concerns?
The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.
I took some numbers out because I did not want to quote it the whole thing
but they seem high 350 billion a year, not sure about that plus since we have no idea how many illegal citizens there are it is kinda hard to how much they cost the government...... they are estimates at best.
on a another note, if this legislation passed.... what would they do about alcohol, grandpa's cough syrup is probably the worst of all the drugs and very destructive to the family unit... and legal
what I was thinking was the money issue, if those numbers are correct even with in 20 to 25% give or take thats a butt load of money...per year !
Is this your opinion?.. are there any facts on this?
I was under the impression that teenage pregnancy (of the poor/welfare) is mostly from lack of education (sex-ed) and inability to get proper contraceptives.
Just my opnion, but I cant see this blanket statement being correct that extremely poor people see it as a reward to get prego at 15.. maybe some do. but I'm pretty sure they dont put too much thought into becoming pregnant. 'Accidental' is the key word here I think.
"It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse." Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..." In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood."
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
Do you really think an anti-welfare organization is the best place to get your public health information? Maybe you should check out what actual health organizations that do research to reduce unintended pregnancy have to say - and whether they reach the same conclusion that the quest for welfare checks is the cause of teen pregnancy among poor populations.
The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.
I took some numbers out because I did not want to quote it the whole thing
but they seem high 350 billion a year, not sure about that plus since we have no idea how many illegal citizens there are it is kinda hard to how much they cost the government...... they are estimates at best.
on a another note, if this legislation passed.... what would they do about alcohol, grandpa's cough syrup is probably the worst of all the drugs and very destructive to the family unit... and legal
what I was thinking was the money issue, if those numbers are correct even with in 20 to 25% give or take thats a butt load of money...per year !
Godfather.
what would your jesus do?
feed and educate and house the poor?
or blow up innocent people?
and if you are religious,
when did cash become more important than helping people?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
Do you really think an anti-welfare organization is the best place to get your public health information? Maybe you should check out what actual health organizations that do research to reduce unintended pregnancy have to say - and whether they reach the same conclusion that the quest for welfare checks is the cause of teen pregnancy among poor populations.
Thats great and all but Cato did not perform the studies, Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania and Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence did...
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
Do you really think an anti-welfare organization is the best place to get your public health information? Maybe you should check out what actual health organizations that do research to reduce unintended pregnancy have to say - and whether they reach the same conclusion that the quest for welfare checks is the cause of teen pregnancy among poor populations.
Thats great and all but Cato did not perform the studies, Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania and Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence did...
Okay, so you've read those studies for their entire context then? And done a lit review on the subject to see what the majority of the studies show?
Well, usually when people are on welfare and food stamps they are DEPENDANT on the GOV to give them money. So yes they are in charge. You of the logic that people may do as they please with everybody elses money. There is so much abuse of the system, that it is now a lifestyle passed from generation to generation, why do you think that 14,15,16 year old in welfare families get pregnant so often??? Because they see their parent get rewarded (money) when they have a kid. I would say its a good assumption that if you are on welfare and you have children (that you can not afford) yes you are a bad parent because you don't have the means to meet the basic needs for that child. That is terrible parenting.
Saying its discrimination is absurd, thats like saying its discrimination to children, by making your children brush their teeth. If you can't afford to take care of your self or family and you have to rely on the gov for basic needs, you aren't in any place to tell them what they can and can't do. If they want to drug test and thats part of the welfare process then they must do that, if they don't like it, they can get job.
SO its discrimination when my employer randomly selects me to get a drug test??? Because its illegal right... :roll: And there is plenty of proof that women on welfare abuse illegal drugs more. ALmost every link I looked at said this. And thats fine if the working class people you know are doing drugs, they are using their money to do that, But welfare receipients are using tax money provided to them for basic need living. I am trying to figure out how people on assistance are not there on their own choice... We live in a country that has free education, which provides free books and all school supplies, free clothes, and Colleges now lower the enterance grade/scores for poor minorities, much moreso than whites/Asians. So they have all the avenues to succeed, at what point is it not their responsibility?
i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.
and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.
and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?
i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.
No it is not discrimination for your employment because your job may relate to it in some fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that receiving food stamps or being in need of assistance has zero to do with drug use. The two are not connected in any matter except for the fact that you seem to be using it as a guise to clean up the program or help people in some fashion. That's not the same thing at all though as you claim it. As I said before, if the aim is clean up drug problems in our nation, then do so as theirs far more drug addicts not on assistance program than on them (alcoholics, pill poppers, etc). If the aim is to clean up public assistance programs than target way to get people off them, not create some testing scheme which is a pretty backhanded way to address both issues which really have nothing to do with the other. You combine them mostly because you assume and generalize on both issues as if they are related when in fact they are not. And if you're serious about drugs and such in society, you'd reach far greater number of people through the department of motor vehicles than any assistance program. Far more people die and effect the lives of others in society through drinking and driving than any drug problem you claim, and especially just those on assistance which further narrows down the pool of "offenders".
SO its discrimination when my employer randomly selects me to get a drug test??? Because its illegal right... :roll: And there is plenty of proof that women on welfare abuse illegal drugs more. ALmost every link I looked at said this. And thats fine if the working class people you know are doing drugs, they are using their money to do that, But welfare receipients are using tax money provided to them for basic need living. I am trying to figure out how people on assistance are not there on their own choice... We live in a country that has free education, which provides free books and all school supplies, free clothes, and Colleges now lower the enterance grade/scores for poor minorities, much moreso than whites/Asians. So they have all the avenues to succeed, at what point is it not their responsibility?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.
i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.
and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.
and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?
i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.
If you are a man/wife/girlfriend and are on gov. assistance and decide to have a child I think you are a bad parent because you can't even provide basic needs for your self, let alone another human being, DID you have any savings? I would assume you recieved unemployment.
That does not make you a bad parent because you used the system as it is intended to be used. Studies show that the average of people on welfare are there for at least 8 years. My wife works at an inner city school in the Cincinnati (ohio) area, WE (my wife and I) bought all the school supplies book/notebooks/folders/papers/pencils, for all the 6th grade students because every single day kids would show up without these items and you can't make their parent buy them. A 6th grade girl asked my wife to buy her a backpack my wife told the girl to ask her mom as thats her job. The girl said no, its the schools job to provide what I need for school. I get alot of my "generalizations" from real world experiences. Since December I have been going on home visits with my wife for her school because the areas are so bad, she is afraid to go by herself. Needless to say that students my wife is buying clothes for, their houses have beautiful home theatre systems, surround sound, large flasscreen TV's and their dinner table is a piece of plywood propped up by cinder blocks. They have all these electronics yet can't even buy a winter coat for their kids...
No it is not discrimination for your employment because your job may relate to it in some fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that receiving food stamps or being in need of assistance has zero to do with drug use.
ummm... There is no difference, the gov is paying these people and providing them their basic living needs. Just as a job pays you... Recieving food stamps and needing of assistance has to do with money, if you don't have the money to buy yourself clothes/food/house then logically you certinly don't have the money to buy drugs. If they are finding alot of people on drugs it shows an abuse to the system. Is it discrimination to force people on unemployment to make them apply to at least 3 jobs a week and show proof???
ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.
Godfather.
g
no, i do not believe we have ever met
are you going to the 20th anniversary weekend?
i would love to have you over to my campfire
to smoke from my peace pipe and have a nice debate
(no guns allowed)
until then
i do not question your faith
i question when did money become more important than your faith?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Your unemployment example is exactly correct, because it is directly related to the work. Someone could be a drug addict and hold a full time job, someone could be poor for a million other reasons and not be on drugs... once again, you assume and generalize by saying one goes with the other when it is not true. Please show proof of such if you are gonna say otherwise.
ummm... There is no difference, the gov is paying these people and providing them their basic living needs. Just as a job pays you... Recieving food stamps and needing of assistance has to do with money, if you don't have the money to buy yourself clothes/food/house then logically you certinly don't have the money to buy drugs. If they are finding alot of people on drugs it shows an abuse to the system. Is it discrimination to force people on unemployment to make them apply to at least 3 jobs a week and show proof???
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.
Godfather.
g
no, i do not believe we have ever met
o.k buddy no guns, what when and where is the 20th anniversary weekend?
if it's local I would like to have a peaceful debate or just listen to what you have to say.
Godfather.
are you going to the 20th anniversary weekend?
i would love to have you over to my campfire
to smoke from my peace pipe and have a nice debate
(no guns allowed)
until then
i do not question your faith
i question when did money become more important than your faith?
i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.
and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.
and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?
i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.
If you are a man/wife/girlfriend and are on gov. assistance and decide to have a child I think you are a bad parent because you can't even provide basic needs for your self, let alone another human being, DID you have any savings? I would assume you recieved unemployment.
That does not make you a bad parent because you used the system as it is intended to be used. Studies show that the average of people on welfare are there for at least 8 years. My wife works at an inner city school in the Cincinnati (ohio) area, WE (my wife and I) bought all the school supplies book/notebooks/folders/papers/pencils, for all the 6th grade students because every single day kids would show up without these items and you can't make their parent buy them. A 6th grade girl asked my wife to buy her a backpack my wife told the girl to ask her mom as thats her job. The girl said no, its the schools job to provide what I need for school. I get alot of my "generalizations" from real world experiences. Since December I have been going on home visits with my wife for her school because the areas are so bad, she is afraid to go by herself. Needless to say that students my wife is buying clothes for, their houses have beautiful home theatre systems, surround sound, large flasscreen TV's and their dinner table is a piece of plywood propped up by cinder blocks. They have all these electronics yet can't even buy a winter coat for their kids...
yeah, i did have some savings, which was spent on food and rent, etc, what difference does that make? and it's only by the grace of God i had the $12,000 i had because while i was working it took most my pennies to feed my kids.
good on you for helping out the students in need, but you're not a country providing school supplies and clothes. you're a concerned teacher/couple, which is fantastic but that doesn't mean, “…we live in a country that has free education, which provides free books, and all school supplies, free clothes…”
no doubt there are parent's using this money to buy home theater systems, surround sound systems, and large flatscreen tv's, but this is not specific to drug addicts.
and i understand that you may have experience with some of the scenarios you've used, but you've still made sweeping over-generalizations that don't represent reality. your stories may describe one percent, ten percent, even twenty percent of assistance recipients but i don't believe that justifies the over-generalization.
Comments
So many stereotypes and blanket statements in your post that I don't even know where to begin.
This bill is not about kids being raised by drug users. It doesn't say anything about kids being taken away from their parents if their parents are drug users. If they wanted kids to not be raised by drug users, they would create a bill that addressed that problem - for ALL children being raised by drug users, not just the ones who receive food stamps. This bill in no way promotes the welfare of children. Its entire point is to deny the government assistance that feeds children.
Because they have so many more obstacles than wealthier families to obtaining reliable contraception.
No they don't. I've never met anyone who's been inconvenienced by someone choosing to smoke weed, or take ecstacy, or LSD at the weekend. It's never bothered me or anyone I've ever known, ever.
Or you could take away their welfare stamps and then they'd be forced to rob and steal to feed themselves.
Great idea!
I took some numbers out because I did not want to quote it the whole thing
but they seem high 350 billion a year, not sure about that plus since we have no idea how many illegal citizens there are it is kinda hard to how much they cost the government...... they are estimates at best.
on a another note, if this legislation passed.... what would they do about alcohol, grandpa's cough syrup is probably the worst of all the drugs and very destructive to the family unit... and legal
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Is this your opinion?.. are there any facts on this?
I was under the impression that teenage pregnancy (of the poor/welfare) is mostly from lack of education (sex-ed) and inability to get proper contraceptives.
Just my opnion, but I cant see this blanket statement being correct that extremely poor people see it as a reward to get prego at 15.. maybe some do. but I'm pretty sure they dont put too much thought into becoming pregnant. 'Accidental' is the key word here I think.
"It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse." Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..." In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood."
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html
more than half of these "links" can't be opened
and the ones that can seem to be very biased
anyway
even if all of these numbers are true
what is the right thing to do?
what would your "jesus" do?
i would rather feed and educate anyone on this planet
than start unnecessary wars that cost much more than the numbers sold to us in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_ ... e_Iraq_War
just look at the future estimates regarding the healthcare of the injured vets
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
interesting.
"Professors Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway of the University of Ohio, found that, if you compare two individuals with incomes below the poverty level, an individual who does not receive welfare is two and a half times more likely to be out of poverty the next year than an individual who receives welfare."
come on man, just cause Eds Uncle says it... haha, just kiddin.
I dont think getting rid of welfare is a good idea, like the autor of this article states, but he does at least propose some interesting alternatives ,ie Establish a Dollar-for-Dollar Tax Credit for Contributions to Private Charity.
If you are in such dire need of assistance that food stamps are required, drug use is the one of the worst activities to participate in. So how about this proposal:
* Drug tests required for government assistance
* If a person fails they have two options
1) No more assistance OR
2) Enroll in a rehab program / classes and assistance continues as long as attendance requirement are met.
It is very hard for some people to overcome their addictions, especially on a moments notice. Ending food assistance could be devastating, especially if the user is severely addicted. But if there is motivation to seek treatment, maybe some people will be able to get their heads on straight and make something out of their lives.
I imagine once a person is drug-free and their heads clear up, they will be able to take control of their lives and get to a point where government assistance is no longer required.
Does this appease both conservative and liberal concerns?
what I was thinking was the money issue, if those numbers are correct even with in 20 to 25% give or take thats a butt load of money...per year !
Godfather.
Cato's Mission
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
http://www.cato.org/about-mission.html
Do you really think an anti-welfare organization is the best place to get your public health information? Maybe you should check out what actual health organizations that do research to reduce unintended pregnancy have to say - and whether they reach the same conclusion that the quest for welfare checks is the cause of teen pregnancy among poor populations.
what would your jesus do?
feed and educate and house the poor?
or blow up innocent people?
and if you are religious,
when did cash become more important than helping people?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Okay, so you've read those studies for their entire context then? And done a lit review on the subject to see what the majority of the studies show?
i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.
and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.
and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?
i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.
Godfather.
That does not make you a bad parent because you used the system as it is intended to be used. Studies show that the average of people on welfare are there for at least 8 years. My wife works at an inner city school in the Cincinnati (ohio) area, WE (my wife and I) bought all the school supplies book/notebooks/folders/papers/pencils, for all the 6th grade students because every single day kids would show up without these items and you can't make their parent buy them. A 6th grade girl asked my wife to buy her a backpack my wife told the girl to ask her mom as thats her job. The girl said no, its the schools job to provide what I need for school. I get alot of my "generalizations" from real world experiences. Since December I have been going on home visits with my wife for her school because the areas are so bad, she is afraid to go by herself. Needless to say that students my wife is buying clothes for, their houses have beautiful home theatre systems, surround sound, large flasscreen TV's and their dinner table is a piece of plywood propped up by cinder blocks. They have all these electronics yet can't even buy a winter coat for their kids...
g
no, i do not believe we have ever met
are you going to the 20th anniversary weekend?
i would love to have you over to my campfire
to smoke from my peace pipe and have a nice debate
(no guns allowed)
until then
i do not question your faith
i question when did money become more important than your faith?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
yeah, i did have some savings, which was spent on food and rent, etc, what difference does that make? and it's only by the grace of God i had the $12,000 i had because while i was working it took most my pennies to feed my kids.
good on you for helping out the students in need, but you're not a country providing school supplies and clothes. you're a concerned teacher/couple, which is fantastic but that doesn't mean, “…we live in a country that has free education, which provides free books, and all school supplies, free clothes…”
no doubt there are parent's using this money to buy home theater systems, surround sound systems, and large flatscreen tv's, but this is not specific to drug addicts.
and i understand that you may have experience with some of the scenarios you've used, but you've still made sweeping over-generalizations that don't represent reality. your stories may describe one percent, ten percent, even twenty percent of assistance recipients but i don't believe that justifies the over-generalization.
it's all very, very sad.