What to do about the gays?

[MJZiggy]

http://www.usaid.gov/

United States Agency for International Development. Active in places like Zimbabwe, and a TON of 3rd world and post conflict countries around the world. Just celebrated the electrification of a town in Sudan, did a lot of econ. dev. in Iraq (still going on) and Afghanistan and is also active in Central and South America.

[bobblehead]

but there are still BILLIONS of people around the world struggling, couldn't we just raise taxes so they can ALL have a check?

PS, wouldn't it be better than doing that silly infrastructure building?? I mean a check they can spend NOW.

[MJZiggy]

They're not just building infrastructure. It's economic development including microloans, trade development, investment, and agriculture. There's no need to give them all a check. They have governments too. Even though many of their governments do not afford them the freedom and choices that you and I see. Still, we do what we can.

[GrnBay007]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

For the record, I absolutely do NOT support people getting on and staying on welfare for a lifetime. I do believe in programs that will work to get individuals off welfare. Different areas of assistance are all lumped in to the term welfare. I am very against a physically able person sitting on welfare collecting a monthly check (for spending), housing assistance, food stamps and full medical care (better than many working middle class get) and is able to do this for years without doing anything to better themselves or work toward getting off welfare. That's wrong. I am not against the working poor receiving some assistance because their low paying jobs just don't make ends meet. Lets face it, not all people have the capabilities to get an education beyond H.S. and unless they are skilled labor they may not have the opportunity to earn a wage to support a family. But they do work and are often times very ashamed to receive assistance because of the stigma our society gives welfare recipients. In order to fix this...come up with strict guidelines for those on welfare that don't have any intention or incentive to work and offer them programs and give them deadlines. It would take a lot of close monitoring and additional staff at Human Services...and extra spending in that area is often frowned upon. Those workers are often times just doing the basics and are way understaffed. So where do you spend the money? Handing out the monthly checks or coming up with strict programs/deadlines and forking out the money to enforce it by hiring additional staff?

I come from an identical family and my father was a deadbeat who never paid child support.

No, it's not identical. My ex has never missed a child support payment and is very involved in the life of his children. It's not a lot monthly and close to 1/2 of it goes into an account for the kids for college. I've never gone back to court to get the CS raised. We are doing fine so there is no reason for it and whether it's the right or wrong way to look at it, why change something when it's working. The relationship they have with their father is more important to me then any monthly check. I feel I'm fortunate though because even without that check I can make it and would still find a way to get my kids to college. There are many single women, whether it be through divorce or other circumstances, that are not as fortunate.

[bobblehead]

AND...I didn't mean to imply your ex was a deadbeat. I meant my family was a single mom with kids that worked hard and was independent...AND my dad was a deadbeat, sorry for the confusion. (I read it one way in my mind with inflections and assume everyone sees my thoughts, my bad)

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it. You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids. People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.

On to ziggy....but they are hungry and their gov'ts aren't doing much, can't we just cut them a check? That is what we do here, we just give them money, we don't build infrastructure in the inner city, we don't create jobs for them, we give them enough to eat and live, shouldn't the poor in 3rd world countries be afforded the same thing.....I would think its less their fault for being in that situation than it is people born in america, I mean, how can you be so mean spirited towards them....sorry, couldn't resist, i get called heartless all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

I've refined my position. Love between a man and a saguaro is fine, but love between a man and a barrel cactus is just unholy.

Though, i will allow civil unions between you and all cacti..but marriage only applies to saguaros.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

[GrnBay007]

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it.

Right. But when these jobs are created what do they pay per hour? Even a single person with no family has a hard time making ends meet in their own housing on minimum wage. What is it now, $7.25?

You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids.

And that's called "breaking the cycle". It has to start somewhere. Give them the opportunity to get education/training and give them a fair/reasonable deadline. Make it or break it. You would be amazed at the amount of young adults out there that have come from the welfare families that have never been encouraged to make it on their own without welfare or criminal acts to survive. Some of them...not all, will fight like hell if they see someone finally supporting them and giving them encouragement. I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if I hadn't seen it first hand. People CAN change.....even it certain beliefs and ways of living are instilled in them as children.

People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

I'm all for them working harder...but we all have to realize there are people out there that are simply not ABLE to further their education. The job at Walmart or Target may be all they are able to do.

Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.

What I said was give them the tools they need for a determined amount of time and then make it or break it. Choosing which job is good enough will not be an option....take what you are able to get. But, if they are working and the only thing they are able to do is something working minimum wage and can't make ends meet, is it so bad they receive fuel assistance or something to that affect in terms of assistance? And as far as if someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" goes and that no inherrant right to a family exists... I would say I don't think we should judge those who are poor and have a family...I don't believe it's my right to determine if a low income couple should or should not have children. The one area I have no tolerance for is the woman/family that continue to have children and receive benefits when they've had children removed from the household due to negligence or abuse. The State would never approve, but I would support mandatory birth control/sterilization in those cases.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

I didn't say you did, just pointing out what Tex would say...and clearly it is important in our country....look at how our pols act.

Regardless, our country was founded as a beacon on hill to show the world how great "it" could be. Hard to do that when we have people suffering. Hard to export democracy and the "american way" if it has people suffering.

[bobblehead]

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it.

Right. But when these jobs are created what do they pay per hour? Even a single person with no family has a hard time making ends meet in their own housing on minimum wage. What is it now, $7.25?

You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids.

And that's called "breaking the cycle". It has to start somewhere. Give them the opportunity to get education/training and give them a fair/reasonable deadline. Make it or break it. You would be amazed at the amount of young adults out there that have come from the welfare families that have never been encouraged to make it on their own without welfare or criminal acts to survive. Some of them...not all, will fight like hell if they see someone finally supporting them and giving them encouragement. I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if I hadn't seen it first hand. People CAN change.....even it certain beliefs and ways of living are instilled in them as children.

People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

I'm all for them working harder...but we all have to realize there are people out there that are simply not ABLE to further their education. The job at Walmart or Target may be all they are able to do.

Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.

What I said was give them the tools they need for a determined amount of time and then make it or break it. Choosing which job is good enough will not be an option....take what you are able to get. But, if they are working and the only thing they are able to do is something working minimum wage and can't make ends meet, is it so bad they receive fuel assistance or something to that affect in terms of assistance? And as far as if someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" goes and that no inherrant right to a family exists... I would say I don't think we should judge those who are poor and have a family...I don't believe it's my right to determine if a low income couple should or should not have children. The one area I have no tolerance for is the woman/family that continue to have children and receive benefits when they've had children removed from the household due to negligence or abuse. The State would never approve, but I would support mandatory birth control/sterilization in those cases.

1) so what should minimum wage be $20? it is what the market of supply (jobs) and demand (employees) determines. If EVERYONE was overqualified to do such jobs what then? I know this is cruel, but as long as ditches need to be dug, the world needs ditch diggers. Not everyone gets a great job, only those that strive for it the hardest. I have tried to come up with an economic model where everyone can make a ton of money, but there ain't one.

2) I agree, there are programs to help them "break the cycle" and some people take advantage of them. As a matter of fact there are tons of said programs...public school being the biggest. What you are talking about is a second chance after childhood. Its good in principle, but has never proven effective, the only thing effective to date is sink or swim (and some sink Also, should everyone who works for minimum wage get a chance at free training to improve?? And again, if so, who works the lower end jobs? The best programs to improve your life are privately run (the warren buffet foundation comes to mind) (I shudder to say it, but church organizations also do a lot to help people)

3) now you are treading into my territory. I don't judge poor families who work hard and make it, but have less than some. I do judge people who have a family, can't afford it, and run to the gov't for money, then have 2 more kids. Now as far as the birth control thing goes, how about something like this (I'm hypothetical and stirring debate, don't hate me). How about the minute a woman has to take public assistance she gets the birth control implant in her arm and when she picks up her check every month it has to be checked/maintained. If at a later date she pays back the money she can have it removed and have more kids. If she can identify the father (be they family or not) who isn't supporting his kids he is forceably given a visectomy. If he pays back the money she got from the gov't he can get it reversed.

One thing I will say, despite this topic, I don't feel welfare/support programs are too bad, they aren't what are bankrupting our gov't. The problem is societal wide programs (SS and medicare) that politicians collect the money for, but instead of saving it for future generations they spend it on pet projects, inefficient gov't spending, ect.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

I didn't say you did, just pointing out what Tex would say...and clearly it is important in our country....look at how our pols act.

Regardless, our country was founded as a beacon on hill to show the world how great "it" could be. Hard to do that when we have people suffering. Hard to export democracy and the "american way" if it has people suffering.

That is one of the better arguements I have heard: setting an example for the world. I like it, not enough to buy into it fully, but I do like it. I still think we prop up our own poor who have far more opportunity than any poor person in a third world country. I still believe wholeheartedly that job creation, growth and private sector investment does far more to help a poor person than any gov't program.

The way you typed that "Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one" that it reads like you are saying I made that claim as well, but I see where you are coming from. Tex likes to claim, we like to claim.

[MJZiggy]

1) so what should minimum wage be $20? it is what the market of supply (jobs) and demand (employees) determines. If EVERYONE was overqualified to do such jobs what then? I know this is cruel, but as long as ditches need to be dug, the world needs ditch diggers. Not everyone gets a great job, only those that strive for it the hardest. I have tried to come up with an economic model where everyone can make a ton of money, but there ain't one.

2) I agree, there are programs to help them "break the cycle" and some people take advantage of them. As a matter of fact there are tons of said programs...public school being the biggest. What you are talking about is a second chance after childhood. Its good in principle, but has never proven effective, the only thing effective to date is sink or swim (and some sink Also, should everyone who works for minimum wage get a chance at free training to improve?? And again, if so, who works the lower end jobs? The best programs to improve your life are privately run (the warren buffet foundation comes to mind) (I shudder to say it, but church organizations also do a lot to help people)

3) now you are treading into my territory. I don't judge poor families who work hard and make it, but have less than some. I do judge people who have a family, can't afford it, and run to the gov't for money, then have 2 more kids. Now as far as the birth control thing goes, how about something like this (I'm hypothetical and stirring debate, don't hate me). How about the minute a woman has to take public assistance she gets the birth control implant in her arm and when she picks up her check every month it has to be checked/maintained. If at a later date she pays back the money she can have it removed and have more kids. If she can identify the father (be they family or not) who isn't supporting his kids he is forceably given a visectomy. If he pays back the money she got from the gov't he can get it reversed.

One thing I will say, despite this topic, I don't feel welfare/support programs are too bad, they aren't what are bankrupting our gov't. The problem is societal wide programs (SS and medicare) that politicians collect the money for, but instead of saving it for future generations they spend it on pet projects, inefficient gov't spending, ect.

First, you have to pay for those surgeries and b/c, secondly, you can't simply reverse a vasectomy and expect presurgical fertility.

Maybe instead of going after the society-wide programs, we should think about going after the idiots for misappropriating the funds.

[bobblehead]

Paying for those surgeries and birth control is far cheaper than paying for another child. (like 400 for a visectomy, not sure on the implant women get). And they lost some fertility... shoulda thought of that before they let their first child to fend for itself.

And I agree about going after the idiots who misappropriate funds. I think most welfare/assistance programs are something we can afford, problem is once gov't gets involved waste/inefficiency ect gets started. Pretty soon I have to read an article in the LV review journal about a poor lady who can't get by on her check and foodstamps. Meanwhile the picture is of a 300lb lady with a baby in the cart, and a young child next to her. In the cart is a big bag of Kingsford, and 3 boxes of cereal. She is holding a package of steak in her free hand....I mean c'mon, are you kidding me? Growing up I had eggs and toast every morning, I thought it was cuz mom loved me, now she tells me cereal is way more expensive than eggs and toast.