CA dems demand FREE DIAPERS for those on welfare

[rightwinger]

Damn

Conservatives sure are a bunch of pricks

just because they are against giving them free diapers?.....does that include Liberals who also are against free Diapers....or is that different?....

Seriously"...when it comes to poor people, they are ******* pricks

 

[Harry Dresden]

If our "poor" wish to improve their standard of living, let them get a f**kin' job and do it themselves. I am not responsible for improving their standard of living. If they are so abominably selfish that they continue to pump out useless eaters with no intention of feeding them themselves, they can damned well rinse and wash diapers.

A Job ? Hell No !! Only Dumb Wet Backs - do that Jay Oh Bee shit !! That shit be unhealthy for the libido !

Oooh, good thing we've got a bumper crop of new wet backs, then!

you guys dont even know what a "wet back" is..... apparently.....that word went out decades ago.....at least out here it did....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Indeed. Just because these women get knocked up by career inmates, thus no daddy to help raise them, doesn't mean I need to pay for it. They are the ones who choose to live beyond their means and the poor 'children' have to pay for it. If they want to live that way then fine. **** em.

-Geaux

Uhhnmmm...already done...and we get to pay for it.

And this, Bush and Gueau, is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you present no SOLUTIONS. You present rants and bitching. Let me make it easy for you to understand. A solution would be something that the country could do to stop babies from being malnourished, or without necessities. Bitching and ranting is posting on a message board that the problem is welfare mothers having babies. And, that, libertarians and republicans is why you are losing elections. You offer no solutions, only obstructionism, bitching, and rhetoric, like, "Welfare mothers should stop *******!" Since that is your idea of a "solution", I am all ears as to what you would legislate to make that happen.... Perhaps you would fund a series of Public service videos of Sarah Palin's daughter teaching abstinence.

and your solution is.....lets give them more money..... that has worked so well in my State.....and yet you guys still want to keep doing that....

 

[Geaux4it]

Indeed. Just because these women get knocked up by career inmates, thus no daddy to help raise them, doesn't mean I need to pay for it. They are the ones who choose to live beyond their means and the poor 'children' have to pay for it. If they want to live that way then fine. **** em.

-Geaux

Uhhnmmm...already done...and we get to pay for it.

And this, Bush and Gueau, is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you present no SOLUTIONS. You present rants and bitching. Let me make it easy for you to understand. A solution would be something that the country could do to stop babies from being malnourished, or without necessities. Bitching and ranting is posting on a message board that the problem is welfare mothers having babies. And, that, libertarians and republicans is why you are losing elections. You offer no solutions, only obstructionism, bitching, and rhetoric, like, "Welfare mothers should stop *******!" Since that is your idea of a "solution", I am all ears as to what you would legislate to make that happen.... Perhaps you would fund a series of Public service videos of Sarah Palin's daughter teaching abstinence.

The current 'solution' for personal irresponsibility is- I have to pay for it. Why does a girls/woman's choice to get laid come at a cost to me? From a typical liberal point of view, taking money from someone else is status quo.

-Geaux

 

[Harry Dresden]

Damn

Conservatives sure are a bunch of pricks

just because they are against giving them free diapers?.....does that include Liberals who also are against free Diapers....or is that different?....

Seriously"...when it comes to poor people, they are ******* pricks

i agree many are like that,you see it here in threads about the poor.....does that also include Liberals with that mindset?.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

Uhhnmmm...already done...and we get to pay for it.

And this, Bush and Gueau, is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you present no SOLUTIONS. You present rants and bitching. Let me make it easy for you to understand. A solution would be something that the country could do to stop babies from being malnourished, or without necessities. Bitching and ranting is posting on a message board that the problem is welfare mothers having babies. And, that, libertarians and republicans is why you are losing elections. You offer no solutions, only obstructionism, bitching, and rhetoric, like, "Welfare mothers should stop *******!" Since that is your idea of a "solution", I am all ears as to what you would legislate to make that happen.... Perhaps you would fund a series of Public service videos of Sarah Palin's daughter teaching abstinence.

The current 'solution' for personal irresponsibility is- I have to pay for it. Why does a girls/woman's choice to get laid come at a cost to me? From a typical liberal point of view, taking money from someone else is status quo.

-Geaux

Same ol", same ol'. *****, *****, *****. You know, as insane as Sunniman is, at least he would offer a SOLUTION, like, "Put the babies on rocky ledges, and let then roll off into the ocean when a storm kicks up..."

 

[Rikurzhen]

And this, Bush and Gueau, is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you present no SOLUTIONS.

This is an interesting point that you raise. I'm going to riff on this for a bit.

At the most basic level of analysis, a problem either has solution(s) or it doesn't. If this problem has no solutions then that's the end of discussion. Now, let's look at the decision branch where we do find solutions.

This branch is constrained by the Overton Window:

The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept.​

Solutions either fall within the window or outside of it. Clearly there are no solutions to this problem which fall within the window, so if a solution exists it must fall outside the window of what is considered acceptable public policy.

What is needed for a solution to be effective? Behavior needs to be modified to prevent out of wedlock birth and costs must be reduced. The 2nd condition can be satisfied with a policy of male and female sterilization for any couple who require state assistance for child support for a period exceeding X months. The couple, whether intact or not, has a child, so they're not denied the experience of parenthood. The State has an interest in preventing more children being born. The parents most likely don't want to be sterilized. This creates a very powerful incentive for the parents to gather support from family and friends, thus shifting the burden away from the State and onto voluntary contributors. We could even throw in bleeding heart liberals and have them pony up their own cash to support these parents.

Such a policy would also likely modify behavior on the margins in the group of men and women who would be most likely to require state assistance if they got pregnant. Kind of a "Scared Straight" dynamic.

This solution guarantees that a woman doesn't have multiple children to support, thus reducing state expenditures down to the level required to support only one child. The man who is sterilized can't impregnate other women for he's shown that he's irresponsible by not providing for the child he conceived with his previous partner.

Sterilization becomes a viable solution only when public tolerance is stretched to the limit. The problem has to become bad enough that people are no longer will to pay anymore to babymamas and their broods living off the public dime. Once that happens, then the Overton Window shifts, this solution becomes acceptable to the public, and it's implemented.

Another solution is mandatory implantation of long term birth control in women. This runs into the same problem faced by ObamaCare - coercion. Additionally there are the violations of religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs of the government's role with respect to private lives of citizens. The benefit is that this intervention is reversible when the couple is ready to have children, that is, it eliminates accidents and all births become planned. Without accidental pregnancies the need for State support of children falls drastically - now we're dealing with widows and divorced moms, no single women anymore.

You see the problem here? You're demanding a solution be offered which falls within the Overton Window and as we've seen no such solutions have been shown to work. I'm going to guess that you're going to find solutions from outside the Overton Window to be unacceptable and reject the shifting of the Overton Window to make them acceptable. This now puts you into the territory of demanding the impossible and that's not a reasonable position to take.

Let me backtrack a bit. There is yet another solution but it also falls outside of the Overton Window. Massive shaming and shunning of single mothers dependent on welfare from all people in society. This used to be well within the Overton Window boundaries before the 1950s until Liberals got to work to make shaming and shunning single moms an unacceptable behavior. Along with the shaming and shunning is a removal of support and a shifting back to having religious charities provide for these single women. We'd probably also want to look at bringing back shotgun marriages. These tactics have a HISTORY of being effective. Of course they're not foolproof, but they worked far better than present day social mores do at controlling single motherhood.

You really can't fault the critics for not offering solutions when you reject the solutions as being unacceptable because you attach value to other principles. In point of fact, if anyone has to answer for their position, it's liberals for they've taken us from a culture where the problem was manageable to a culture where we're having a lot of problems. YOU GUYS did this, so don't point to conservatives and cry about us not having solutions which work while simultaneously locking in your social revolution and social attitudes.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The state is bankrupt but democrats can never stop taxing white people and giving free stuff to blacks and hispanics.

California bill would start nation?s first diaper assistance program - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee


, Aug. 1, 2014 - 9:12 pm
It was the last week of the month, and Shanique Brown had already spent her $515 in CalWORKs benefits. Other programs would prevent Brown and her 18-month-old son, Armani, from going hungry, but the 22-year-old single mom had no money for a necessity so basic it is often forgotten: diapers.

Armani is now potty-trained, but a new state bill seeks to ensure low-income parents will never face the challenge Brown did. If passed, Assembly Bill 1516 would make California the first state in the country to create a diaper assistance program for families on welfare.

The groundbreaking legislation comes with a price tag: more than $100 million annually,

The bill, written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would address that problem by giving $80 a month to each family that qualifies for CalWORKs and has a child under 2. Onodera said over 120,000 children, about 12 percent of kids enrolled in the program, would receive benefits.

How many kids have died where $80 more a month would have prevented it?

 

[Vandalshandle]

And this, Bush and Gueau, is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you present no SOLUTIONS.

This is an interesting point that you raise. I'm going to riff on this for a bit.

At the most basic level of analysis, a problem either has solution(s) or it doesn't. If this problem has no solutions then that's the end of discussion. Now, let's look at the decision branch where we do find solutions.

This branch is constrained by the Overton Window:

The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept.​

Solutions either fall within the window or outside of it. Clearly there are no solutions to this problem which fall within the window, so if a solution exists it must fall outside the window of what is considered acceptable public policy.

What is needed for a solution to be effective? Behavior needs to be modified to prevent out of wedlock birth and costs must be reduced. The 2nd condition can be satisfied with a policy of male and female sterilization for any couple who require state assistance for child support for a period exceeding X months. The couple, whether intact or not, has a child, so they're not denied the experience of parenthood. The State has an interest in preventing more children being born. The parents most likely don't want to be sterilized. This creates a very powerful incentive for the parents to gather support from family and friends, thus shifting the burden away from the State and onto voluntary contributors. We could even throw in bleeding heart liberals and have them pony up their own cash to support these parents.

Such a policy would also likely modify behavior on the margins in the group of men and women who would be most likely to require state assistance if they got pregnant. Kind of a "Scared Straight" dynamic.

This solution guarantees that a woman doesn't have multiple children to support, thus reducing state expenditures down to the level required to support only one child. The man who is sterilized can't impregnate other women for he's shown that he's irresponsible by not providing for the child he conceived with his previous partner.

Sterilization becomes a viable solution only when public tolerance is stretched to the limit. The problem has to become bad enough that people are no longer will to pay anymore to babymamas and their broods living off the public dime. Once that happens, then the Overton Window shifts, this solution becomes acceptable to the public, and it's implemented.

Another solution is mandatory implantation of long term birth control in women. This runs into the same problem faced by ObamaCare - coercion. Additionally there are the violations of religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs of the government's role with respect to private lives of citizens. The benefit is that this intervention is reversible when the couple is ready to have children, that is, it eliminates accidents and all births become planned. Without accidental pregnancies the need for State support of children falls drastically - now we're dealing with widows and divorced moms, no single women anymore.

You see the problem here? You're demanding a solution be offered which falls within the Overton Window and as we've seen no such solutions have been shown to work. I'm going to guess that you're going to find solutions from outside the Overton Window to be unacceptable and reject the shifting of the Overton Window to make them acceptable. This now puts you into the territory of demanding the impossible and that's not a reasonable position to take.

Let me backtrack a bit. There is yet another solution but it also falls outside of the Overton Window. Massive shaming and shunning of single mothers dependent on welfare from all people in society. This used to be well within the Overton Window boundaries before the 1950s until Liberals got to work to make shaming and shunning single moms an unacceptable behavior. Along with the shaming and shunning is a removal of support and a shifting back to having religious charities provide for these single women. We'd probably also want to look at bringing back shotgun marriages. These tactics have a HISTORY of being effective. Of course they're not foolproof, but they worked far better than present day social mores do at controlling single motherhood.

You really can't fault the critics for not offering solutions when you reject the solutions as being unacceptable because you attach value to other principles. In point of fact, if anyone has to answer for their position, it's liberals for they've taken us from a culture where the problem was manageable to a culture where we're having a lot of problems. YOU GUYS did this, so don't point to conservatives and cry about us not having solutions which work while simultaneously locking in your social revolution and social attitudes.

Whatever....

 

[Geaux4it]

The state is bankrupt but democrats can never stop taxing white people and giving free stuff to blacks and hispanics.

California bill would start nation?s first diaper assistance program - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee


, Aug. 1, 2014 - 9:12 pm
It was the last week of the month, and Shanique Brown had already spent her $515 in CalWORKs benefits. Other programs would prevent Brown and her 18-month-old son, Armani, from going hungry, but the 22-year-old single mom had no money for a necessity so basic it is often forgotten: diapers.

Armani is now potty-trained, but a new state bill seeks to ensure low-income parents will never face the challenge Brown did. If passed, Assembly Bill 1516 would make California the first state in the country to create a diaper assistance program for families on welfare.

The groundbreaking legislation comes with a price tag: more than $100 million annually,

The bill, written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would address that problem by giving $80 a month to each family that qualifies for CalWORKs and has a child under 2. Onodera said over 120,000 children, about 12 percent of kids enrolled in the program, would receive benefits.

How many kids have died where $80 more a month would have prevented it?

An emotional question with no data to form an answer

-Geaux

 

[francoHFW]

Won't pass...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Won't pass...

i already said that.....even though the pro-diaper brigaid in this thread think this is a wonderful idea....there are many moderate and cons.Democrats out here....who dont think its that great of an idea....just throwing more money at something.....we know how well that has worked out here....

 

[gallantwarrior]

The state is bankrupt but democrats can never stop taxing white people and giving free stuff to blacks and hispanics.

California bill would start nation?s first diaper assistance program - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee


, Aug. 1, 2014 - 9:12 pm
It was the last week of the month, and Shanique Brown had already spent her $515 in CalWORKs benefits. Other programs would prevent Brown and her 18-month-old son, Armani, from going hungry, but the 22-year-old single mom had no money for a necessity so basic it is often forgotten: diapers.

Armani is now potty-trained, but a new state bill seeks to ensure low-income parents will never face the challenge Brown did. If passed, Assembly Bill 1516 would make California the first state in the country to create a diaper assistance program for families on welfare.

The groundbreaking legislation comes with a price tag: more than $100 million annually,

The bill, written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would address that problem by giving $80 a month to each family that qualifies for CalWORKs and has a child under 2. Onodera said over 120,000 children, about 12 percent of kids enrolled in the program, would receive benefits.

How many kids have died where $80 more a month would have prevented it?

How many parents let their kids die because they were unwilling to earn that $80?

 

[jasonnfree]

The state is bankrupt but democrats can never stop taxing white people and giving free stuff to blacks and hispanics.

California bill would start nation?s first diaper assistance program - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee


, Aug. 1, 2014 - 9:12 pm
It was the last week of the month, and Shanique Brown had already spent her $515 in CalWORKs benefits. Other programs would prevent Brown and her 18-month-old son, Armani, from going hungry, but the 22-year-old single mom had no money for a necessity so basic it is often forgotten: diapers.

Armani is now potty-trained, but a new state bill seeks to ensure low-income parents will never face the challenge Brown did. If passed, Assembly Bill 1516 would make California the first state in the country to create a diaper assistance program for families on welfare.

The groundbreaking legislation comes with a price tag: more than $100 million annually,

The bill, written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would address that problem by giving $80 a month to each family that qualifies for CalWORKs and has a child under 2. Onodera said over 120,000 children, about 12 percent of kids enrolled in the program, would receive benefits.

I suppose asking someone who does not work to wash, hang, fold, and use clothe diapers would be way out of line?

A brave and gallant warrior for sure in the battle against children and diapers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The state is bankrupt but democrats can never stop taxing white people and giving free stuff to blacks and hispanics.

I suppose asking someone who does not work to wash, hang, fold, and use clothe diapers would be way out of line?

A brave and gallant warrior for sure in the battle against children and diapers.

Not. Try "a battle against sloth and selfishness". If I have to pay for diapers, I will agree to pay for one dozen clothe diapers per child. No more, no less. Let the so-called "mother" use those diapers as she sees fit. If the kid runs around buck-assed naked, that is no longer my problem.
Clothe diapers were good enough for generations of children. Breeders can damned well suck it up and use them, too.
Did I **** the ***** and knock her up? Where's the sperm donor who did? Why aren't you hounding those responsible to pay for diapers?