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.
I think that's common sense. You can't have May flowers without April showers. Without Winter gloom where would we get Spring bloom? And a penny can't be saved if it isn't first earned.
I disagree: the system is broke because the theory upon which it rests assumes too high a level of righteousness on the part of participating people, which includes recipients and employees of the system.
Beelzebub.
Just to let you know I had to snip the other quotes where you answered another poster. I hope I did it right. If not you will know why not every quote is answered.
Your first paragraph does make some sense when it come to nature but withe human beings there is more consciencious though involved and yes some nature. We can have a system that helps prevent scammers from getting away with it by limiting assistance to 2 children per woman. Yes a penny can't be without first being that I agree with in that these people who have multiple children receiving assistance without adding so much as a penny to that system is why they didn't earn the right to have that assistance. Now with so many children born into this system they will most likely never contribute towards it and most likely over reproduce which will only bankrupt the system. Taking jobs away from the employees will not help the system nor will it help society but placing limits on how many receive the assistance will but remember it needs to be temporary not a lifetime of assistance or years and years until all the ridiculous amount of children women have become the age of 18.
So you're Beelzebub, hahaha playing devils advocate are we. I had almost forgotten about Beelzebub. Since you brought it up I will say, and I know I'm might get a lot of flack for this, I am beginning to see why people were taught stay with one mate. If people didn't go around haveing sex with just anyone, outside of marriage, a lot of this assistance would be cut down or not necessary. There is a lot about religion I don't agree with but that one I see was right.
The only thing is, there are more forms and combinations of birth control than ever and abortion is legal and we've got more children being born into welfare handouts than ever.
Somehow it's not linked with birth control, it seems more about the ease of getting welfare handouts as a reward for irresponsible breeding behavior.
Yep. I see this all the time here in Indiana. FYI: I live in a 99% white community. I see people working at McDonalds who make minimum wage who have no problems just laying with any man and getting knocked up. Their rationale is, "oh, well, I can go on welfare." At the factory where I work, there is a woman who has 2 kids with 2 different daddies and is pregnant with a third. She makes 9.00 an hour and the taxpayers support her. She has no desire to marry or gain new skills so she can get a better job. If she does either of these two things, she loses those bennies.
Location: In a place with little freedom (aka USA)
712 posts, read 1,366,878 times
Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oildog
Why should taxpayers pay to house this loser as well as feeding his kids.
Because we are all humane.
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.
