Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People keep listing reasons that are irrelevant. The rich don't force the poor to shop at Wal-Mart, or to use EBT, or to live in Section 8 housing.
"Oh no, my shoe has a hole in it. It's because the rich people that own Payless used shoddy materials just to maximize their profits from me. But their deals were so good, they forced me to get the 3 for 1 promotional purchase."
Yes, I received something, but clearly my landlord got a better deal out of it than I did. And I can't move into a cheaper place because that would require up front cash, which I do not have once I have paid the rent. e.g. move in might require $1,000, which I do not have.
Lol what the hell? Is your landlord supposed to let you live there for free? So no one should be allowed to invest and create a source of passive income for himself?
My landlord benefits from government market intervention. My friend would like to let me pitch a tent in his back yard for $50 a month but government makes that illegal.
In other words, government enforces the existence of an ongoing supply of rent slaves, thereby guaranteeing landlords sufficient demand to keep the wealth flowing their way.
How is THAT a free market economy?
At least you moved on from "someone wanted to sell me a small house, but the government wouldn't let him".
I bet there is nothing illegal about someone living in a tent in a backyard. The issue becomes when they charge. Now it's a business. And yes, there are, and should be regulations on that. Because as that guy's neighbor, I don't want him filling his yard with folks that are cooking, crapping and tossing trash everywhere.
Everything is subject to debate.
I am saying that the truth of what I have said is indeed self evident. No offense intended.
I highly doubt Thomas Jefferson would approve of the "evolution" of those ideals which he proposed in the Declaration of Independence.
I'm confused. So Wal-Mart is bad because they "prey" on poor people. AND Wal-Mart is bad because they aren't in poor neighborhoods.
People/Labor have associated costs. They are not like objects whose value can be driven to zero and have zero expenses. People need food, water, shelter, and basic necessities in order to maintain a standard work week. We as a society take the high moral ground and provide for such necessities when those needs are not met... welfare.. funded by tax payers.
When you have a business that employs people for labor but their earnings are so low that the basic necessities that are required to maintain a standard work week are not met, once again, tax payer funded programs are called upon to make up the difference. The end result is a fully employed individual that still relies on the tax payer in order to show up day after day to work for a private entity. This amounts to a private entity(business) outsourcing the associated costs of labor to the tax payer.... hence tax dollars -> private business.
Its much more complex than that.... but that's the gist from my understanding
There are tons of articles online to read and to form your own opinions.
Not really sure how to make this any simple. Read the article you linked... and read it again. The assumptions and conclusions you are making have no correlation to that article.
You are simply marginalizing the article YOU linked.
AND yes.. one can absolutely support a child while working for McDonalds at a lower pay. READ WHAT I SAID. I didn't say a single parent can support a child on a McDonalds minimum wage salary alone. The key is they have other support structures to do so. As the article stated, some of those included in the statistic can very well be married parents. Some families are living together sharing the financial burden... in those cases a minimum wage worker (several of them) could support the family on a whole. The key point here is THAT YOU DON"T KNOW... and making assumptions and conclusions you claim is illogical.
I took a portion of the article to highlight a point I was making. About 30% of fast food workers have a kid, you take that in combination with who is marching and other data, reports, etc. it will show you that you have people who were NEVER in a strong financial position....who had a child or children....that their fast food salaries could not afford. Period. I read the article, I was the one that posted it lol.
Again... I am pointing out that a low income person is not necessarily a welfare recipient.
Okay and what does that have to do with anything? We are discussing people working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or another VERY LOW WAGE or minimum wage job with kids. We aren't discussing Married people, we are discussing Single Mothers with multiple kids from deadbeats.
So let me summarize
* You eluded that a "chick" with enough kids (I think at one point this hypothetical person had 16 kids) to make up a football team with a van load of deadbeat father is the statistically significant. Enough to make drastic measures for legal regulation of children. I pointed to you that the statistics do not show this to be true. I included two links that show the number of children in a single parent home. You back peddled with "You know what I meant". No. I don't know what you mean because its those same exaggerated situations are used to back your proposal that legal regulation is justified. You can't use a hypothetical to back a stance, walk away from it when challenged, leaving just the baseless stance with no foundation. Repeating it over and over again does not make it any more valid.
I will ask you again. If you have a chick with 4 kids from 4 different deadbeats, with all 4 kids on welfare RIGHT NOW, and that chick is now back at the H&H Department asking for welfare for a 5th child...what DO YOU personally do? Just give it to her? Or should she have sanctions? I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the people making kids they can't afford, I'm not talking about other groups where you seem to be trying to shift the conversation towards.
* I pointed out that rarely do regulating stupidity and common sense work as intended without ramifications elsewhere. In particular to this discussion.. China's One-Child policy. I pointed out that the clear statistic differences among demographics is an indication of what the problem is and how to go about reducing it. I also challenged that there is no real way to enforce this regulation.... not without violating another groups rights and not without the high risk of unintentional impact. In other words... discrimination.
* You continue to claim that if I don't support regulation over having a child that I must support those that make irresponsible choices. I have said many times this is false. I have given one example counter. It shows that one can disapprove of such irresponsible behavior while NOT support the regulation of it. Its not a black and white issue with simple solutions.
See my question above and PLEASE answer it this time.
* You claim that the MAJORITY of those supporting minimum wage increase are adults in minimum wage jobs with multiple children. You provided a link. The link not only shows that your claim of MAJORITY is false but there is no correlation to you original claim that these are a burden on the welfare system and thus justifies child birth regulation.
I can provide a lot more data man, I'm just busy and don't have time to pull everything up. Anybody with any type of awareness knows that the majority of people in these positions are the LOSERS of society. They aren't teens, they aren't young adults starting out in the workforce....they are LOSERS in life who made bad decisions when they were younger.
* You have yet to make a clear distinction between poor/low income and welfare recipient.
You can be poor and low income, while not taking welfare. My thing is that if you are POOR and low income, how is it that you have 6 kids? Do you think that a household with a single mother with 6 kids, and the mother is bringing in about $25,000 a year, ISN'T receiving some form of welfare on the side? You have got to be kidding me. The State would require the Mother to get the welfare even if the Mother is declining it because she can't afford to feed everybody.
* You continue to misuse the notion that your Personal freedoms (civil liberties) are being violated. I have stated many times that what you are proposing (forced birth control) is a violation of civil liberties.. the right to bodily integrity. You can't get it through your head that a disagreement of how your tax dollars are used (even misused) doesn't qualify as a violation of your personal freedoms (civil liberties). You just being overly dramatic.
It's not just tax dollars, it's the effect of having multiple kids you can't afford, you can't parent, with no Father, etc. does to society. It increases the GHETTO. When you increase the GHETTO, you increase the negative effects of the GHETTO. Eventually us running to the Suburbs are going to have fewer and fewer places to run to hide from these degenerates. And when the Government is paying for your CARE, they have a right to REGULATE IT. This was the entire problem with Socialized Medicine and Health Insurance, if the Government is in control of the Health Insurance System then they can issue out rules and regulations of that system. The Government is supporting this chick's 5 kids from 5 different thugs, so the Government very well CAN regulate how those kids are taken care of and if she has additional kids (which further hurts the kids she already has) they can implement sanctions.
Come on man, can't you see this?
* You finally propose more details of what you are proposing and it includes jailing of a mother and placing the child into a welfare system. So your only solution is through the penal system. Really? is that the best we can do?
Yes, there has to be sanctions. When a guy has kids he can't afford, and can't make his child support payments, we SLAP him in jail! So why can't women who continue to make kids they can't afford be slapped in jail?
I'm sure I am missing some but you basically have nothing else but an emotionally driven rant full of exaggerated hypothetical mother who has been irresponsibly having multiple children with multiple dead beat fathers. As I said... if you can get past this emotion of anger and start thinking you may be able to formulate a reasonable stance on a clearly stated argument.
As I said in another thread that touched similarly... this is a hot button issue with you and you have a personal stake driven by some sort of resentment and anger. I am truly sorry. Until you deal, no amount of logical statistics will change your mind. As such.. I will leave it that.
Have a good day.
I'm waiting for you to address my points. You are responding with emotional tirades, not me. I'm making a very logical and rational argument in relation to continued displays of irresponsibility. I'm also talking about a SPECIFIC segment of the population while you are trying to go off into discussing other segments. I'm specifically talking about people having kid after kid that they can't afford, and looking for the Government or Walmart to subsidize them. That's what I have been talking about, so let's stay on this topic.
Sorry.. but I only responded with definitions, links, and statistics with much repetition. You are not even processing the very links you presented. Despite your accusations, I haven't posted any personal driven rant. Your responses keep defaulting to some sort of hypothetical-irresponsible-mother-with-16kids-with-a-thing-for-deadbeat-fathers as your only basis for debate ignoring any all reason (including statistics) in lieu of unsupported assumptions and correlations.
I'm not interested in discussions under such circumstances.
Have a good day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
e.g. move in might require $1,000, which I do not have.
