Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[rightwinger]

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

How punative a society do we live in?

Do we punish women who make wrong decisions about who they love? Do we take out our frustrations on the children?

Do we put them out in the streets? Is it the role of society to punish people for their relationship mistakes anjd make an example of them?

Is it the role of society to INTENTIONALLY enable people to make poor decisions that may result in pounishment of their children?

You like the idea of giving a teenaged girl reason to bring a child into a life of poverty, irresponsible parenting, etc?

I think it is irresponsible fo society to enable poor decision makers to make pooor decisions.

You dont?

Do we take a Dickensonian view towards unsupported children? What punative steps do you want to take against women who have made poor choices in their men?

My view is that Americans care about their people. We do not discard them because they have made a mistake or are in need of assistance. Americans give a helping hand to those who need it, we don't punish them because we do not agree with their choices

 

[Jarhead]

How punative a society do we live in?

Do we punish women who make wrong decisions about who they love? Do we take out our frustrations on the children?

Do we put them out in the streets? Is it the role of society to punish people for their relationship mistakes anjd make an example of them?

Is it the role of society to INTENTIONALLY enable people to make poor decisions that may result in pounishment of their children?

You like the idea of giving a teenaged girl reason to bring a child into a life of poverty, irresponsible parenting, etc?

I think it is irresponsible fo society to enable poor decision makers to make pooor decisions.

You dont?

Do we take a Dickensonian view towards unsupported children? What punative steps do you want to take against women who have made poor choices in their men?

My view is that Americans care about their people. We do not discard them because they have made a mistake or are in need of assistance. Americans give a helping hand to those who need it, we don't punish them because we do not agree with their choices

Exactly!

That is EXACTLY how Americans are...

And without government assistance, fewer would make poor decisions...and the few that do will find extending hands from many Americans...

You are correct about Americans. SO why do we need Government to do it for us and actually turn it into an "entitlement"?

Once an entitlement, the fear of making a bad decision is less of a factor in making a decision.

You are slowly coming around RW...you just dont realize it.

 

[rightwinger]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

 

[Jarhead]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

Did Dickens write "A Christmas Carol" to have taken place in the United States of America?

 

[rightwinger]

Is it the role of society to INTENTIONALLY enable people to make poor decisions that may result in pounishment of their children?

You like the idea of giving a teenaged girl reason to bring a child into a life of poverty, irresponsible parenting, etc?

I think it is irresponsible fo society to enable poor decision makers to make pooor decisions.

You dont?

Do we take a Dickensonian view towards unsupported children? What punative steps do you want to take against women who have made poor choices in their men?

My view is that Americans care about their people. We do not discard them because they have made a mistake or are in need of assistance. Americans give a helping hand to those who need it, we don't punish them because we do not agree with their choices

Exactly!

That is EXACTLY how Americans are...

And without government assistance, fewer would make poor decisions...and the few that do will find extending hands from many Americans...

You are correct about Americans. SO why do we need Government to do it for us and actually turn it into an "entitlement"?

Once an entitlement, the fear of making a bad decision is less of a factor in making a decision.

You are slowly coming around RW...you just dont realize it.

And why not rely on both like we do today?

Private charity is great and represents what is inherently good about Americans. But there is a wide disparity in the availability and scope of private charity depending on where you live and the current economic climate. Do we want families to fall through the cracks?

 

[rightwinger]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

Did Dickens write "A Christmas Carol" to have taken place in the United States of America?

No, but based upon some of the responses on this thread he just as well might have

 

[Jarhead]

Do we take a Dickensonian view towards unsupported children? What punative steps do you want to take against women who have made poor choices in their men?

My view is that Americans care about their people. We do not discard them because they have made a mistake or are in need of assistance. Americans give a helping hand to those who need it, we don't punish them because we do not agree with their choices

Exactly!

That is EXACTLY how Americans are...

And without government assistance, fewer would make poor decisions...and the few that do will find extending hands from many Americans...

You are correct about Americans. SO why do we need Government to do it for us and actually turn it into an "entitlement"?

Once an entitlement, the fear of making a bad decision is less of a factor in making a decision.

You are slowly coming around RW...you just dont realize it.

And why not rely on both like we do today?

Private charity is great and represents what is inherently good about Americans. But there is a wide disparity in the availability and scope of private charity depending on where you live and the current economic climate. Do we want families to fall through the cracks?

What makes you think they will?
There is no reason to think they will.
Americans care about each other.

I see in NYC how men and women in suits continually give money to the poor that ask....I, myself helped a drunk man to his feet and gave him some cash and borught him to an officer who took him to a shelter on a very cold day a few years back.

I have been to three Christmas Parties this year so far and brought a wrapped new toy for toys for tots each time...I do not have a winter coat (just havent bought one yet), but I have no older ones to fall back on as I donate my coats as often as I can.

And I am one of those rich evil greedy conservative selfish 5 %ers.....

So what makes you think that the needy will fall through the cracks?

Becuase some leftist blogger says so?

 

[Jarhead]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

Did Dickens write "A Christmas Carol" to have taken place in the United States of America?

No, but based upon some of the responses on this thread he just as well might have

You read with a jaded view.

We are not saying "let em suffer"

We are saying "dont enable them and they wont suffer"

You opt to read it as "let em suffer".

Strangely, you were the one who said (paraphrased) Americans are a giving people...

Yet you debate as if we are not.

 

[Luissa]

Needy people my ass. If these s-called needy fucks would take responsibility for themselves and their actions then they wouldn't need us taxpayers supporting them. Truth is these needy pukes are nothing but a bunch of lazy bums that have no sense of pride or dignity.

Tell me counselor, how long would you pay a person for not working before you decided it was time for that person to find a job, any job!

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

I had my child at 27, and have worked since I was fifteen. I footed my own bill. I also had a job waiting for me when I was done with maternity leave, I do not feel bad for the assistance I received.

 

[Jarhead]

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

I had my child at 27, and have worked since I was fifteen. I footed my own bill. I also had a job waiting for me when I was done with maternity leave, I do not feel bad for the assistance I received.

Could you have supported your child without the assistance?

 

[Luissa]

Not all mothers, who can't (at the time) afford to care for their children, are bad mothers.

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

I paid taxes for many years before I had my child, more than the assistance I received when he was first born. I also saved up quite a bit of money for when I was on maternity leave, but I had no idea I would stop working at eight months. You guys like to paint single moms with a broad brush.
Yes he gets state medical now, but so do many children that are DD who's parents planned them and were financially able to take care of them. I am sorry I cannot pay the high cost of sending him to therapy.

 

[Luissa]

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

I had my child at 27, and have worked since I was fifteen. I footed my own bill. I also had a job waiting for me when I was done with maternity leave, I do not feel bad for the assistance I received.

Could you have supported your child without the assistance?

For the month I was on it, no.When I saved up money and vacation time for maternity leave, I didn't count on having to leave work at eight months. I didn't receive assistance until I ran out of vacation time and money, for one I didn't qualify. And like I said, I think have paid more than $450 in taxes in my life. So, Lonestar is false in saying he footed by bill. I paid taxes for years, for programs like the one I benefited from. If I needed help for a month, then so be it. I would rather suck it up and pay my rent and buy food, then feel bad because people like you and Lonestar have no clue how the real world works.

 

[Jarhead]

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

I paid taxes for many years before I had my child, more than the assistance I received when he was first born. I also saved up quite a bit of money for when I was on maternity leave, but I had no idea I would stop working at eight months. You guys like to paint single moms with a broad brush.
Yes he gets state medical now, but so do many children that are DD who's parents planned them and were financially able to take care of them. I am sorry I cannot pay the high cost of sending him to therapy.

I do not paint them with a braod brush. My sister is a single mom...and a true liberal...and I have noithing but the highest regard for her.

I agree, none of us plan on having a chilkd that may require above the norm medical or psychological care, and in no way do I see such a program of assistance as a program that does not have a place in our society.

I was referring to government assitance as it pertains to basic needs.

If the assistance was not there the parent would less likely have the child..until they are financailly ready to.

 

[Jarhead]

I had my child at 27, and have worked since I was fifteen. I footed my own bill. I also had a job waiting for me when I was done with maternity leave, I do not feel bad for the assistance I received.

Could you have supported your child without the assistance?

For the month I was on it, no.When I saved up money and vacation time for maternity leave, I didn't count on having to leave work at eight months. I didn't receive assistance until I ran out of vacation time and money, for one I didn't qualify. And like I said, I think have paid more than $450 in taxes in my life. So, Lonestar is false in saying he footed by bill. I paid taxes for years, for programs like the one I benefited from. If I needed help for a month, then so be it. I would rather suck it up and pay my rent and buy food, then feel bad because people like you and Lonestar have no clue how the real world works.

you have me all worng Luissa...

ANd frankly, I am not going to attempt to show you....

But I will say this Luissa....I was questioning you so I can debate you with knowledge of how you think and why you think the way you do....

Why do I think the way I do?

Becuase I was homeless and with nothing...and one day I found that I was as I was becuase I was waitring for others to help me along....

And now, many years later, I own a business, a home, have a great family...both boys in college (one out now)...a beautiful wife...and you know something? I would not have changede one thing...

SO I am a success story of what I believe in...

And you are a story of why you believe what you believe in.

I dont hold it against you....I admire you for your sentiments.

You criticize me as one that does not know how the real world works.

Whatever...good luck with your son. I hope only great things for him and from him in the future...

 

[Luissa]

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

I paid taxes for many years before I had my child, more than the assistance I received when he was first born. I also saved up quite a bit of money for when I was on maternity leave, but I had no idea I would stop working at eight months. You guys like to paint single moms with a broad brush.
Yes he gets state medical now, but so do many children that are DD who's parents planned them and were financially able to take care of them. I am sorry I cannot pay the high cost of sending him to therapy.

I do not paint them with a braod brush. My sister is a single mom...and a true liberal...and I have noithing but the highest regard for her.

I agree, none of us plan on having a chilkd that may require above the norm medical or psychological care, and in no way do I see such a program of assistance as a program that does not have a place in our society.

I was referring to government assitance as it pertains to basic needs.

If the assistance was not there the parent would less likely have the child..until they are financailly ready to.

I didn't plan to have my child, I made the mistake of not protecting myself enough, but I took responsibility. When I was pregnant I was financially stable enough to have a child, for one I made too much to even think about applying for assistance. Like most things in life, something came up.

My mother is a prime example, when she was married to her first husband who did not plan on getting sick. His insurance kicked him off, and in order to pay for his medical care she had to quit her job so he could get state medical. When he died she went back to work, and my mother has never gotten assistance since. Being self employed, I am sure she has paid for that assistance by now. If she had not gotten that assistance she would have been screwed by the medical bills for years.

 

[Coyote]

Assistance is designed to help a person or family through temporary emergencies. That is what it is for. That is what our taxes pay for. I think far to many people lump the minority of "welfare scammers" with the majority of folks who have a real and often temporary need for it.

 

[Conspiracist]

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

How punative a society do we live in?

Do we punish women who make wrong decisions about who they love? Do we take out our frustrations on the children?

Do we put them out in the streets? Is it the role of society to punish people for their relationship mistakes anjd make an example of them?

What happens to personal responsibility when you demand a safety net for any fuck up people make. When young women see their older counterparts fuck up and come out okay on the backs of others, what encouragement do they have not to follow suit?

 

[Conspiracist]

Assistance is designed to help a person or family through temporary emergencies. That is what it is for. That is what our taxes pay for. I think far to many people lump the minority of "welfare scammers" with the majority of folks who have a real and often temporary need for it.

I am all for temporary help. Messed up situations happen a lot. Temporary situations are not what I have seen most of when I was growing up.

 

[Jarhead]

Assistance is designed to help a person or family through temporary emergencies. That is what it is for. That is what our taxes pay for. I think far to many people lump the minority of "welfare scammers" with the majority of folks who have a real and often temporary need for it.

You may be correct. But the minority of the welfare scammers coupled with the minority of the unemployment scammers coupled with the minority of the medicaid scammers......gives us reason to rethink exactly where we are going.
...and whether or not we are developing an atomoshere of entitlement..

And one thing I can say as fact as I am in the business...

The unemplyment scammers numbers increase regularly....

Our "no show" rate of scheduled interviews is over 5 times for those on unemployment compared to those NOT on unemployment. This is up from a shade under 4 times as great for 2009.

Our "turn down" rate of opportunities is over 3 times more for those on unemployment compared to those not on unemployment. This is up from a 1:1 ratio a year ago.

 

[Coyote]

Assistance is designed to help a person or family through temporary emergencies. That is what it is for. That is what our taxes pay for. I think far to many people lump the minority of "welfare scammers" with the majority of folks who have a real and often temporary need for it.

You may be correct. But the minority of the welfare scammers coupled with the minority of the unemployment scammers coupled with the minority of the medicaid scammers......gives us reason to rethink exactly where we are going.
...and whether or not we are developing an atomoshere of entitlement..

And one thing I can say as fact as I am in the business...

The unemplyment scammers numbers increase regularly....

Our "no show" rate of scheduled interviews is over 5 times for those on unemployment compared to those NOT on unemployment. This is up from a shade under 4 times as great for 2009.

Our "turn down" rate of opportunities is over 3 times more for those on unemployment compared to those not on unemployment. This is up from a 1:1 ratio a year ago.

I would say increase pressure on the scammers and such, but don't take it out on the honest people and that is what I see happening.

Unemployment is also way up period, don't you think that has something to do with it?

I am not sure I'm understanding the significance of the rates your citing - could you explain what it means in your view?