The kids thing that tends to crop up here every so often is moot since welfare families on average have the same amount or fewer children than others. Many have no children. I think what we tend to look at are the high-profile cases, or maybe it's a media misconception.

I also think there is a wide misconception that those on welfare are happy and comfortable to be there--that they aren't doing anything to get out of it--that they don't care for their children. Little do we hear about the stories of the welfare recipient who, for one reason or another (often beyond their control), lost their job(s) and is struggling to get back on their feet. And then there's the situation where the welfare recipient does have a job but can't afford to make ends meet. Single mothers often fall into this due to lack of quality and affordable childcare.

I've heard about enough regarding "suckling off the teat" and "crotch fruits" without even commenting on the most likely situations. Do you seriously think that everyone on welfare is doing nothing to help themselves or their children? Welfare isn't a long-term state for most recipients. What happens there?

There is no correlation between women having more children and receiving welfare benefits. There is no direct incentive. Often the support one receives from welfare isn't a livable amount. Why would that encourage a family to have more children?

Baraka explained it well.

This further explains some of the welfare myths...it is from before the '98 welfare reform that included tougher work requirements and benefit limits (# of yrs) that make these myths even less prevalent.
Its time we stop with the myths.

facts won't sway the fuckwits because they want to believe the crap they spew. and then people around here seem to take some sort of joy from posting contrary to facts or reason because they think it annoys liberals.

normally when people discuss things I think if everyone had the facts then people would either reshape their arguments or change their minds, but no, here it's the same people for years repeating the mythical bullshit ad nauseum so any pointing out of actual facts will either go ignored or this topic will die only to be resurrected sometime down the road with yet again the same people posting the same drivel.

Ok, first, I have seen those figures before, and am not arguing against them nor ignoring them. I wasn't discussing the status quo, but rather Grolsh's comment, which I quoted.

I know a relatively small chunk of my tax dollars CURRENTLY supports welfare and other like programs. I don't think even that small amount should be taken from me. I support social programs...that offer opportunities rather than handouts. Whether that is a feasible position is a topic for another discussion.

I don't care that welfare receipients have 'the same number of kids' as non-receipients. If they can't afford to feed themselves, they have no business bringing another mouth into this world, period. I am in my late 20's, married, self-sufficient, and want children. That I haven't had any yet is because I cannot afford to properly support one. I am putting my money where my mouth is here. I won't be a burden to others, nor will I bring a child into this world I cannot yet properly care for. To take money away from me which I could be putting away so I can one day afford to raise a child is criminal.

I know movement off welfare rolls is frequent. But it is my understanding that people who receive welfare once, are often on and off recipients. I could very well be incorrect on this one, but that's the point of a discussion, which leads me to my next point:

Smooth: This is just a discussion. I read and am thinking about Baraka_Guru's post, and I have considered all the others I have read here. Believe it or not, these discussions both on and off this forum help me refine my opinions. Sometimes they serve to reinforce them, and sometimes they inspire change. I am constantly evolving as a person and while I understand why you might not agree with me, I don't see how you can argue that my position is somehow Amoral, and it certainly doesn't warrant the implication that I am a Fuckwit, or that I ignore the facts.

If everybody agreed with you no debate would be possible.

Look, I'm sorry.

I'm from Liverpool. We controlled the slave trade, from the Exchange in my, small, city. Our small town was transformed into a cosmopolitan, well educated municipality solely on the back of the triangular trade. Look it up. Liverpool, for it's population has too many good universities, too many libraries, too many hospitals and too much history.

Liverpool has many beautiful buildings (the most in the UK outside of the square mile of london), the most art galleries (same as the last thing i mentioned), libraries, museums, art galleries, etc, etc, etc... all on the back of the suffering of other races... and the funnelling, though empire, of the wealth of the world through to European, then American (with a cross-over) hands.

Liverpool, since the end of of the British Empire, has been a basket-case.

To talk about redistribution of wealth in a nation (The US) that hasn't known famine in many, many decades is simply ridiculous in the grand scale of things.

Look around.

Don't you understand what is happening and has just happened?

Baracka, I hope my commentary regarding children wasn't misinterpreted. I was merely trying to point out that the economic ability to afford children is not truly related to it.
Greg, Malthus was a tough taskmaster. Say goodbye to your parents/grandparents, or those not judged as able to contribute? Who does the deciding? You? I would take up arms against you having life or death decisions, in the abstract. I would expect others to do the same if it was I. Greg, you seem far too bright and well informed (albeit with terrible ideas, HAH!) not to answer this question:
The infrastructure that surrounds you, roads, hospitals, literate fellow humans, laws, scales of economies, the ability to stuff your face silly at every meal, all these things, were they provided through the pooling of resources? Doesn't being in a group require compromise? If one is unwilling to compromise, shouldn't they be excluded from enjoying the fruits of those do?

Tisonlyi; thanks for the perspective. I'm still enjoying this, however. I think I'm learning quite a bit as well. I wasn't sure why Liverpool became, well, what it is today. I thought it had a lot to do with post-industrialization, less manufacturing at home, and so on. Did not know it went back that far.

Grolsh:

First, I am not an Arnarchist.

When I mentioned Malthus, I did so in the sense that populations will expand until they are absolutely maxing out their means. If you then provide relief, the population will simply expand more until you are in the same situation you started with, but with more people. Not in the sense that we should pluck those who are unable to contribute out of society or that we should judge people.

To answer your question: The things you mention are absolutely and uncontestably the product of pooled resources. I am a minimalist, and I am deeply worried by the direction I believe our country to be going; However, I also realize that Anarchy is not even close to ideal or even sustainable. I believe in the construction of roads, a strong government (but not a big one!), public services, etc. I recognize the "libertarian utopia" as some on this board have put it is not practical, and certainly isn't possible to achieve. However, I do think we could take several big steps in that direction and benefit from doing so.

I also agree that being a part of a group requires compromise. Often a great deal of compromise. However, compromise is both give and take. Typically these large groups are formed so each entity, through pooling of resources, can benefit from an economy of scale and can 'get' more than they 'give' into the system. I feel this is less and less the case in todays society. More and more frequently people who give nothing into the pool are drawing the most out; I disagree with that practice. I willingly pay my taxes, and will continue to do so. I am not upset that I have to pay taxes; I am upset at how my taxes are being used.

I am not suggesting that we leave people out to starve, or that we abandon social programs like welfare altogether. Rather, I am suggesting a no-free-lunch approach that has, to a degree, already been implemented. I feel that if you seek government assitance and are able (as most are), you should be put to work in some form or fashion until you find a better job. I feel the government should negotiate with landlords and bill collectors directly to defer (not to pay) any bills, rent, etc. while providing work and food, but little to no money.

If my comments are in any way incendiary, I apologize as it is not my intention to troll, but rather to submit my opinions for review and discussion, and to rebut some I disagree with.

Fair enough. I thought it was important to ask.
I give you full points for reasonableness, if you will accept them from a quasi-socialist.:wave:
I'm Canadian, it's in the beer. I think it's what makes our beer superior:orly: to yours.:wave:
Actually, many Canadians disagree. We have a Conservative Prime Minister freshly
voted in for his second mandate. I think it's great to have change, even if I didn't vote for him.

For fifteen days I was confined to my room, and I was surrounded by the sort of books that were fashionable then (this was sixteen or seventeen years ago) -- I mean to say those books in which is treated the art of making people happy, wise, and rich in twenty-four hours. I had, then, digested, -- I should say, swallowed whole, -- all of the lucubrations of all of these entrepreneurs of public happiness, -- of those who council all of the poor to make themselves slaves, and of those who persuade them that are all unthroned kings. -- You won't be surprised to learn that I was in a state of mind close to dizziness or stupefaction.

It seemed to me only that I felt, confined in the depths of my intellect, the obscure seed of an idea superior to all of the old wives' tales collected in the encyclopedia that I had recently read through. But it was only the idea of an idea, something infinitely vague.

And I went out with a great thirst. For a passionate taste for bad reading engenders a proportional need for fresh air and refreshments.

As I was about to enter a cabaret, a beggar held out his cap to me, with one of those unforgettable gazes that would cause thrones to tumble, if spirit could move matter, and if the eye of a hypnotist could make grapes ripen.

At the same time, I heard a voix whispering in my ear, a voice that I well recognized: it was that of the good Angel, or good Devil, who accompanies me everywhere. Since Socrates had his good Demon, why shouldn't I have my good Angel, and why shouldn't I have the honor, like Socrates, of obtaining my own certificate of insanity, signed by the subtle Lélut and the well-advised Baillargé?

There is this difference between Socrates' Demon and my own, and that is that Socrates' only appeared to him to forbid, warn, and prevent, whereas mine deigns to offer council, suggest, and persuade. Poor Socrates only had a prohibitive Demon; mine is a great affirmer, mine is a Demon of action, a Demon of combat.

Now, his voice whispered this: "He alone is equal to another who proves it, and he alone is worthy of liberty who knows how to conquer it."

I immediately leaped upon my beggar. With a single punch I gave him a black eye, which became in a second as big as a ball. I tore one of my nails breaking two of his teeth, and since I didn't feel strong enough -- having been born delicate and being little practiced in boxing -- to beat this old man to death quickly, I seized him with one hand by the collar of his jacket and with the other I grabbed his throat, and I began to bang his head against the wall vigorously. I must admit that I had previously inspected the area with a quick glance and that I had verified that I would find myself, in this deserted suburb, out of the reach of any police officer for a fairly long period of time.

Having then knocked down this weakened sexagenarian with a kick in the back, energetic enough to have broken his shoulder-blades, I seized a big tree limb that was lying on the ground and I beat him with it with the obstinate energy of a cook who wants to tenderize a steak.

Suddenly, -- Oh delight of the philosopher who verifies the excellence of this theory! -- I saw that ancient carcass turn, stand up with an energy that I would never have expected to find in so singularly broken-down a machine, and, with a look of hatred that seemed to me a good omen, the decrepit ruffian threw himself upon me, blackened both of my eyes, broke four of my teeth, and with the same tree branch beat me to a bloody pulp. -- Through my energetic medicine, I had returned to him his pride and his life.

Then I made him numerous signs to let him understand that I considered the discussion ended, and getting up with all of the satisfaction of a Stoic philosopher, I said to him: "Sir, you are my equal! Do me the honor of sharing my purse with me; and remember, if you are really a philanthropist, that you must apply to all of your brothers, when they ask you for alms, the theory that I had the sorrow of testing out on your back."

He swore to me that he had understood my theory, and that he would obey my advice.

Conservatives Who Cry 'Socialism' Should Acknowledge Role They've Played In What Government Has Become

By GEORGE F. WILL | Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 4:30 PM PT

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Conservatives Who Cry 'Socialism' Should Acknowledge Role They've Played In What Government Has Become

Derwood: Sorry, but I don't recall ever being a part of those things. I am equally upset at republicans (perhaps even more so) for betraying the 'ideals' of that party. I believe that both major parties have shifted far to the left, but the democrats more so.

Perhaps the article should read: "REPUBLICANS who cry foul should acknowledge the roll their PARTY has played in what government has become"

The two major parties in our system battle it out over a few high-profile issues, but are essentially identical with respect to fiscal irresponsibility and short-sightedness.