This weekend our traffic enforcement

[dsred]

I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...

[Soup DeVille]

That is the beauty of the original Constitution.  It is all open to interpretation.  My interpretation is different from yours based entirely on my life experiences, which are obviously much different than yours.

Do your life experiences include reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers? If not, it should.

[hounddog]

I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...

Same with the retards....

[hounddog]

Do your life experiences include reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers? If not, it should.

It does not.  In fact, I had not heard about them until now. 

[James Young]

dsred writes:

I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...

hounddog replies:

Same with the retards....

But I repeat myself. . .  (with apologies to Mark Twain) 

[Soup DeVille]

It does not.  In fact, I had not heard about them until now. 

They're the arguments that helped frame the constitution and really lend some insight into what was intended.

The reasonings between most modern political arguments were handled there one way or another.

[bing_oh]

Alright, Soup, let's look at things from a different standpoint.

First, we'll deal with the realistic side of welfare. While it's all fine and good to say that the government has the right to refuse welfare if someone has additional children while receiving government assistance, we also know that, realistically, refusing that assistance to a newborn child because their parents use the child to leech off of the government is counterproductive to the entire system of welfare.

So, let's look at it from a contractual standpoint. Let's make welfare a contract between the government and the recipient. The terms of the contract would have to be acceptable to both parties and both have the right to refuse the contract if those terms are unacceptable. On the same aspect, a person can legally give up their rights through a contractual agreement if they so desire.

The welfare contract should be limited in time...I'd say 5 years max if not less (if you can't find a job to pay the bills in 5 years, you just aren't trying). The government agrees to pay the recipient's food (food stamps) and shelter/utilities (government-subsidized housing), basically providing the recipient with their most basic needs. In return, the recipient promises to become a productive member of society in that 5 year period. Oh, and, while under that contract, the recipient promises not to have any more children (who would have to be supported by the government as well). Because it would be unfair to any "accidental" kids to not provide them with welfare, the recipient agrees to submit to non-perminent birth control (Norplant, for example) at the government's expense. We can even do this...the government cannot cancel the contract for anything but fraud, but the recipient has the right to cancel the contract at any time, with any reversal expenses to be paid for by the government.

Now, with that, it's not a rights issue. It's a contractual issue. Both sides want something and have to voluntarily give up something to get what they want. It's, basically, just like we all do at a job. We want a paycheck. Our employer wants a task performed. While we're performing that task for pay, our right to freedom of movement is restricted (ie, most of us can't just leave work whenever we want to and expect to get paid). We've entered into a contractual agreement that benefits both sides, and have given up something for it.

Sound fair?

[Soup DeVille]

Yes.

[Rupert]

Except the part about forcing women to take birth control. You can't force people to take drugs.

[bing_oh]

Except the part about forcing women to take birth control. You can't force people to take drugs.

First of all, Norplant isn't "taking drugs." Norplant is an implanted, reversable, time-release birth control. There's pretty much nothing to it.

Second, there's no "forcing" about it. Like I said, the recipient is entering into a contract with the government. That's a stipulation of the contract, kinda like you agree to limit your freedom of movement while at work and, in exchange, you get a paycheck. You still possess the right to go wherever you want when you're working, but your employer also has the right to fire you so you don't get your paycheck. Same thing here...the recipient has the right to not use birth control and pop out as many kids as they want, but the government also has the right to not give them welfare benefits.

The whole point is to decrease the number of people on welfare overall, prevent generational welfare recipients, and get people off of welfare and back into the workforce (which is what welfare was originally created to do). As it stands now, welfare is an unending cycle for most recipients, and they don't want to go out and get a job. Many of them actually have more kids so that they can receive more welfare benefits! It's free handouts with no strings attached.

[Rupert]

So how is birth controlled if not by drugs? Something is released by time, so, what? I'm fine with cutting people from Welfare if they start having more kids they can't support (though arguments for the other side are good enough to prevent me from voting for such a thing), but including birth control as part of the contract is just as bad as including sterilization, even if it is impermanent. Providing free birth control that's easy to get, accompanied with some education about it, is more like it.

[dazzleman]

So how is birth controlled if not by drugs? Something is released by time, so, what? I'm fine with cutting people from Welfare if they start having more kids they can't support (though arguments for the other side are good enough to prevent me from voting for such a thing), but including birth control as part of the contract is just as bad as including sterilization, even if it is impermanent. Providing free birth control that's easy to get, accompanied with some education about it, is more like it.

Education really isn't the answer unfortunately, because the problem with these people is not really lack of knowledge but foul attitude.  Even with the right knowledge, many of them will still choose to do the wrong thing.

[Raza]

Education really isn't the answer unfortunately, because the problem with these people is not really lack of knowledge but foul attitude.  Even with the right knowledge, many of them will still choose to do the wrong thing.

Why doesn't education work?

What is the "wrong thing"?

[dazzleman]

Why doesn't education work?

What is the "wrong thing"?

For education to work, you have to have the right attitude.  It's naive to assume that everybody will do the right thing if only they know what that is.  Some people will always choose to do wrong.

Choosing to have kids that you can't support, and don't have the emotional stability or maturity to give a proper upbringing to, is the 'wrong thing.'

[Rupert]

Maybe they're being educated by self-righteous duckwads, so they're not listening. (That was going to be "dickwads", but I mistyped and like "duckwads" better. ).

Even if we assume that education won't work, it's still not OK to force people to take birth control.

[dazzleman]

Maybe they're being educated by self-righteous duckwads, so they're not listening. (That was going to be "dickwads", but I mistyped and like "duckwads" better. ).

or maybe they're just stupid.....
and maybe we've been stupid for rewarding their behavior for so long..

[Rupert]

Stupid implies no capacity for learning, or intelligence. Ignorant is the word you want.

[dazzleman]

Stupid implies no capacity for learning, or intelligence. Ignorant is the word you want.

some are both....

[Rupert]

Sure, but that's a big generalization to make.

[dazzleman]

Sure, but that's a big generalization to make.

I have known some people like that.  Some of my relatives are like that.  I could tell you a very bad story about my cousin.  Believe me, it's true.

[Rupert]

But not for everyone on Welfare. In fact, it's too big of a generalization to say that everyone on Welfare is ignorant, even.

[dazzleman]

But not for everyone on Welfare. In fact, it's too big of a generalization to say that everyone on Welfare is ignorant, even.

I never meant everyone.  But in reality, what I said would probably apply to a pretty high percentage.

I have a cousin who is a lazy stupid welfare queen who just had an illegimate baby.  She's scamming narcotic pain killers from her doctor (she has back trouble because she's 300 pounds), and she gives those narcotic pain killers to a minor as payment for babysitting her child (in her filthy apartment) while she goes out drinking.  See what I mean?

[Rupert]

Yeah, she's a turd.

But that's not fair to the people you don't hear about who aren't scamming the system.

[The Pirate]

I'm sure there's no way to to get a conclusive number, but I'm interested in seeing the number of legitimate welfare recipients, and how long they receive benefits til they move on.  The liberal in me (sorry Dave ) does agree that we should provide limited assistance towards truly deserving people, but I not thrilled to see my tax dollars supporting the abusers. I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits.  I'm tired of seeing welfare recipients driving nice cars and owning expensive electronic items.

[Raza]

I never meant everyone.  But in reality, what I said would probably apply to a pretty high percentage.

I have a cousin who is a lazy stupid welfare queen who just had an illegimate baby.  She's scamming narcotic pain killers from her doctor (she has back trouble because she's 300 pounds), and she gives those narcotic pain killers to a minor as payment for babysitting her child (in her filthy apartment) while she goes out drinking.  See what I mean?

Oxycodone or vicodin?  Does she need another babysitter?

[dazzleman]

I'm sure there's no way to to get a conclusive number, but I'm interested in seeing the number of legitimate welfare recipients, and how long they receive benefits til they move on.  The liberal in me (sorry Dave ) does agree that we should provide limited assistance towards truly deserving people, but I not thrilled to see my tax dollars supporting the abusers. I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits.  I'm tired of seeing welfare recipients driving nice cars and owning expensive electronic items.

I have no problem with assistance for deserving people.

But you have to recognize that the problem with the whole system is endemic.  In attempting to help the poor, we have set up a system that rewards the behaviors that lead to poverty.  We have turned poverty from an economic condition that would probably be temporary into a intergenerational social cataclysm.  Unwittingly, we have established the poor under a separate culture and lifestyle that is repulsive to the rest of society.  We are now caught in a vicious cycle in which the poor cannot improve their lives without greater interaction with the rest of society, but their lifestyle/values are so repulsive to the rest of society that people erect every barrier they can to avoid contact with them.

It wasn't always this way.  My dad grew up poor, but back then, that didn't necessarily mean a dysfunctional family, bad schools, contact only with other dysfunctional people, etc. as it largely does not.  He lived in a decent town and went to decent schools, and graduated from Columbia University.  He didn't have to go to violent schools and grow up surrounded by drug dealers as a result of his family's lack of financial resources.  His family's lifestyle/values were no different from those of people of greater financial means.  As a result, poverty then wasn't the limiting factor that it has become.

The welfare system has contributed to making poverty a more devastating and virulent disease, rather than just an economic condition, and as such is fundamentally flawed. The problem is not really just the fact that some people abuse the system, but that the system is set up to actually encourage that abuse and pathological behavior on a grand scale.

Part of my anger and disgust with the welfare system is actually due to sympathy toward the innocent victims such as children who get caught up in living under terrible conditions surrounded by bad influences because of the flaws in our system.  Sometimes, a little cruelty can be the greatest kindness, and a lot of intended kindness can be the greatest cruelty.

[sparkplug]

If you have a roof over your head, food to eat, and clothes to wear, then you aren't poor. In fact you're richer than 90% of the world. You just don't have much disposable income.

What has thread come to now? We were talking about traffic enforcement. Get back to it.

[bing_oh]

Education only works if the people being educated want to learn. And, that's assuming that those people don't already possess (and disregard) knowledge about birth control. The truth of the matter is, there are welfare recipients who intentionally have more kids to get more welfare. And, as I said, it's unfair to punish a child because the parent is using him/her to scam the system. So, the only realistic solution is to prevent people on welfare from increasing the number of welfare recipients though procreation is required birth control. And, again, I'm not implying that we should force anyone to not have kids. They can have as many kids as they want...but they shouldn't be allowed to be on welfare and do it. If a person wants to breed a marching army of little brats, then they should have the financial ability to do so. It's commonly called "responsability."

As for the number of people who are abusing the welfare system, I don't have any kind of hard numbers. I can tell you that, in my experience, it's probably a high percentage. As a police officer, I deal with alot of people in alot of low income/government subsidized housing, and we commonly refer to them as "regular customers." They abuse the system. I thought the system was screwed up long before I got into law enforcement, though. I was a cashier in a large grocery store that was on the outskirts of a large city in high school. The first week of the month was "foodstamp week." I stood there, making minimum wage, and watched people but literally cartfulls of steaks and pay in foodstamps. Many of these people were dressed in designer clothing (including quite a few leather and fur coats) and drove pretty nice vehicles. My parents...middle class people with four kids...fed us hamburger and we only got designer clothes if they were on sale. From then on, I knew the system was screwed up.

[rohan]

I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits. 

Michigan requires that right now- but it's noly enforced as a question on a form- "have you applied for work within x number or days?"
All they hadve to do is mark the yes and make up a couple of companies they claim to applied for- and no follow up is done by the welfare people.  Welfare is a joke-

How did this get to welfare anyway?  Pretty cool that this thread is so interesting to people. 

[rohan]

Education only works if the people being educated want to learn. And, that's assuming that those people don't already possess (and disregard) knowledge about birth control. The truth of the matter is, there are welfare recipients who intentionally have more kids to get more welfare.

These people get educatefd in school about birth control in the 6th grade and every person on the planet above the age of 8 knows about sex- education isn't the answer.  And in Michigan women are actually often encouraged to have more kids when they're on welfare- my old neighbor was told by her caseworker that she would  double her allowance if she had another kid because it put her in the 3-5 kid group.  WTF is wrong with that?