Why can't public assistence decrease?

[AntonToo]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

 

[AntonToo]

When I said that there is no welfare, that was incorrect. There is welfare, its provided free if you are old, sick, or disabled. If you are able bodied you have to work for your welfare.

My wording in the original was imprecise, and misinterpreted by a few raving liberals like you.

Your bad wording was interpreted exactly as you typed it, stop blaming someone else for it.

Responsibility and all that ...right?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, raised several.

Ok, tell me how much would someone have to pay you to raise one more. Will a few hundred bucks a month be good enough incentive to not sleep days and nights?

If it's not important to the recipient, then why not just end these payments?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can't our government take the few simple steps that would get citizens off of welfare and food stamps and back into the work force as productive members of society?

1 incentivize small business start ups with tax breaks
2 make job training and public service a prerequisite for receiving any form of govt assistance (able bodied only)
3 allow corporations to bring foreign profits back into the USA tax free if they reinvest them here
4 give tax credits for each new person hired - after 6 months of employment
5 reduce that corporate tax rate. Now the highest in the world

Do those 5 things and the number of people on public assistance would decrease significantly.

1. Welfare went bye-bye nearly two decades ago, replaced by TANF. I suggest you do some homework on welfare reform, TANF and AFDC
2. Each state under TANF was given the authority to manage aid as they see fit.
3. Why? Place a very high tariff on goods produced by American companies who move overseas.
4. See the CETA Program, promulgated under the Ford Administration to slow STAGFLATION
5. Provide targeted tax credits to consumers who will stimulate the economy, see CETA. If such a program were put forth and included private sector jobs, new hire's pay would be partially subsidized by the government.

 

[bripat9643]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

Such people are quite common. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't prove that others wouldn't.

 

[AntonToo]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

Such people are quite common. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't prove that others wouldn't.

So how do you take a baby from someone? How do you (and by you I mean government) do means testing for baby affordability for a particular person and then determine that the intent is to have a baby to collect welfare.

And when you are done figuring that out maybe you can start thinking about where to put what you claim would be a huge influx of confiscated babies.

 

[bripat9643]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

Such people are quite common. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't prove that others wouldn't.

So how do you take a baby from someone? How do you (and by you I mean government) do means testing for baby affordability for a particular person and then determine that the intent is to have a baby to collect welfare.

And when you are done figuring that out maybe you can start thinking about where to put what you claim would be a huge influx of confiscated babies.

Child Services does it all the time, moron. If they can make a determination that a woman is not a fit mother, then they can make a determination that she can't afford to raise a child. Most teenage girls cannot afford to raise a child.

Anyone who has ever tried to adopt knows there is an extreme shortage of children available for adoption. That's why people often go overseas, even big stars like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Besides, after the initial wave of adoptions, the number of illegitimate births will go way down. People adjust their behavior depending on the consequences - fact that liberal policy is based on denying.

 

[AntonToo]

Child Services does it all the time, moron. If they can make a determination that a woman is not a fit mother, then they can make a determination that she can't afford to raise a child. Most teenage girls cannot afford to raise a child.

Anyone who has ever tried to adopt knows there is an extreme shortage of children available for adoption. That's why people often go overseas, even big stars like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Besides, after the initial wave of adoptions, the number of illegitimate births will go way down. People adjust their behavior depending on the consequences - fact that liberal policy is based on denying.

....Belive me, you are in no position to question anyone's intellect.

There are roughly around 15,000,000 kids living in a household near or bellow poverty level.

Your brilliant plan is to do what? Take these kids, by force , from their parents, based on nothing but income (which will probably quickly ruled unconstitutional) and give them to strangers...strangers that don't actually exist since demand for adoption, even on the rosy side tops out probably around 200,000 a year.

And then you call someone else a moron? Time to check that mirror.

 

[Slyhunter]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

Such people are quite common. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't prove that others wouldn't.

So how do you take a baby from someone? How do you (and by you I mean government) do means testing for baby affordability for a particular person and then determine that the intent is to have a baby to collect welfare.

And when you are done figuring that out maybe you can start thinking about where to put what you claim would be a huge influx of confiscated babies.

If their sterilized you don't have to do that shit.

 

[Slyhunter]

Child Services does it all the time, moron. If they can make a determination that a woman is not a fit mother, then they can make a determination that she can't afford to raise a child. Most teenage girls cannot afford to raise a child.

Anyone who has ever tried to adopt knows there is an extreme shortage of children available for adoption. That's why people often go overseas, even big stars like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Besides, after the initial wave of adoptions, the number of illegitimate births will go way down. People adjust their behavior depending on the consequences - fact that liberal policy is based on denying.

....Belive me, you are in no position to question anyone's intellect.

There are roughly around 15,000,000 kids living in a household near or bellow poverty level.

Your brilliant plan is to do what? Take these kids, by force , from their parents, based on nothing but income (which will probably quickly ruled unconstitutional) and give them to strangers...strangers that don't actually exist since demand for adoption, even on the rosy side tops out probably around 200,000 a year.

And then you call someone else a moron? Time to check that mirror.

Sterilization will fix that.

 

[Redfish]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

you are very naïve if you believe that

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can't our government take the few simple steps that would get citizens off of welfare and food stamps and back into the work force as productive members of society?

1 incentivize small business start ups with tax breaks
2 make job training and public service a prerequisite for receiving any form of govt assistance (able bodied only)
3 allow corporations to bring foreign profits back into the USA tax free if they reinvest them here
4 give tax credits for each new person hired - after 6 months of employment
5 reduce that corporate tax rate. Now the highest in the world

Do those 5 things and the number of people on public assistance would decrease significantly.

1. Welfare went bye-bye nearly two decades ago, replaced by TANF. I suggest you do some homework on welfare reform, TANF and AFDC
2. Each state under TANF was given the authority to manage aid as they see fit.
3. Why? Place a very high tariff on goods produced by American companies who move overseas.
4. See the CETA Program, promulgated under the Ford Administration to slow STAGFLATION
5. Provide targeted tax credits to consumers who will stimulate the economy, see CETA. If such a program were put forth and included private sector jobs, new hire's pay would be partially subsidized by the government.

Only a dishonest fool would respond to this post as funny. And one already has.

 

[Redfish]

Why can't our government take the few simple steps that would get citizens off of welfare and food stamps and back into the work force as productive members of society?

1 incentivize small business start ups with tax breaks
2 make job training and public service a prerequisite for receiving any form of govt assistance (able bodied only)
3 allow corporations to bring foreign profits back into the USA tax free if they reinvest them here
4 give tax credits for each new person hired - after 6 months of employment
5 reduce that corporate tax rate. Now the highest in the world

Do those 5 things and the number of people on public assistance would decrease significantly.

1. Welfare went bye-bye nearly two decades ago, replaced by TANF. I suggest you do some homework on welfare reform, TANF and AFDC
2. Each state under TANF was given the authority to manage aid as they see fit.
3. Why? Place a very high tariff on goods produced by American companies who move overseas.
4. See the CETA Program, promulgated under the Ford Administration to slow STAGFLATION
5. Provide targeted tax credits to consumers who will stimulate the economy, see CETA. If such a program were put forth and included private sector jobs, new hire's pay would be partially subsidized by the government.

1. call it whatever you want, its still welfare
2. yes, they were, so what?
3. that should also be done, but I am talking about profits made overseas selling American goods produced in this country. currently those profits (made overseas and taxed there) are again taxed if brought back into this country
4. has it worked? no
5. why should the govt subsidize private industry? I thought you libs hated corporations.

 

[Londoner]

The OP is a victim of the Rightwing media. We get it. Welfare is bad ummkay. You're a broken record - but you're chasing nickels as hundred dollar bills fly out the window.

The real handouts go to the large corporations who fund elections. These corporations have turned our government into an ATM that hands out subsidies and bailouts.

If you don't get it, follow the money. Consider the housing meltdown where we foreclosed on the poor home owner but bailed out the bank. [The wealthy always get the big handouts]

The OP would have us believe that the the poor invalid living beneath a bridge is doing better than the Koch brothers who entertain congressmen on their yacht.

Follow the money dipshit. Big business owns our government, and they get handouts from their Washington puppets.

The OP still lives in Ayn Rand's world where Stalin steals your family's pharmacy. Doesn't he fucking get it? In today's world, the pharmaceutical lobbyists owns government.

Turn off Fox News and take your brain back.

 

[bripat9643]

nothing, I took full responsibility for the kids I produced.

But you wouldn't produce them because of a couple hundred bucks a month. That's the point, people have children, but it takes very rare and quite crazy person to have a child specifically to receive this minimal sustenance money.

hmmm. wrong. You really don't understand the kind of trash people who live in this country, do you? There was a high school somewhere in the Northeast where all the girls decided to get pregnant and have a kid because they thought it would be a fun thing to do. That's how stupid high school girls can be.

 

[AntonToo]

Sterilization will fix that.

Too bad sterilization doesn't fix your kind of stupid.

Have you given some thought how such "small government program" can possibly work?

 

[Slyhunter]

Sterilization will fix that.

Too bad sterilization doesn't fix your kind of stupid.

Have you given some thought how such "small government program" can possibly work?

Yeah ask for a handout, get an operation before they hand the handout to you.

 

[AntonToo]

Sterilization will fix that.

Too bad sterilization doesn't fix your kind of stupid.

Have you given some thought how such "small government program" can possibly work?

Yeah ask for a handout, get an operation before they hand the handout to you.

So if I need food stamps for a year, according to you the condition is to have an operation...which would right about double or triple the cost to tax-payers to provide said food stamps. And after that year...should there be a reversal operation?

Does that sound functional to you?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Who expects to support a family on minimum wage?

Random talking point dispensing jukebox strikes again.

Discussion has nothing to do with someone's expectations, it has to do with income qualifying for SNAP program.

Random talking point my ass. Your jukebox needs calibration.

I said. "Who expects to support a family on minimum wage?"

If you expect to have the taxpayers support you lazy ass, then you need to show some appreciation and get off your ass and look for a job!

If you can't feed your children we understand and will "help" your children. But you!? I expect you to get out of bed and make something out of yourself so we don't, or you won't, expect us to feed your children.

Nowhere in my post did I say I wanted to deny "SNAP" to anyone.

Your bullshit doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[AntonToo]

I said. "Who expects to support a family on minimum wage?"

And I said you are just mindlessly dispensing your pre-programmed talking point which has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

And then you totally failed to understand what is being said to you and reposted same silly sht over again..like the good political automation you are.