Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

I said that employers would have to raise prices, to regulate profit, when hiring MORE employees. Not paying employees more.

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

I'm not suggesting that they should be forced to have their tubes tied. They would only have to do so if they want OUR money. As for violations, how does theft fit into your scenario. If I'm forced to pay for a deadbeat that decides to have a half dozen kids, isn't that theft? Where's my right to keep my personal property fit into your right to personal privacy and well-being?

Originally Posted by goober

One of the first things the Democrats will have to do is pass the budget that this Congress just didn't have time for with their hectic 103 day work year, that's the equivalent to over twenty weeks of work..........
In order to speed up the process, they have will eliminate thousands of pork barrel projects, saving the taxpayers billions. Under the watchful eyes of the GOP, pork barrel spending exploded, with nearly ten times as many earmarks as when the Democrats last held the House gavel, well, all that's over now.
BREITBART.COM - Dems to Wipe Out Pet Projects in Bills

Originally Posted by WPK

I hate to throw water on the bon-fire you have built Goober. But, Democrats will cut the pork out of the Republican budget to add billions more of their own Pork.

Don't count the pennies the budget will save until it actually happens.

Originally Posted by WPK

I hate to throw water on the bon-fire you have built Goober. But, Democrats will cut the pork out of the Republican budget to add billions more of their own Pork.

Don't count the pennies the budget will save until it actually happens.

Originally Posted by Slon

Spoken like someone who stopped arguing and ignored points in this post, only to take a quick jab via insult without argument later on in the thread.

Originally Posted by reino

If that does happen, then Republicans can only blame themselves for it. I don't approve, but after 103 days of work in two years, I guess the just couldn't find the time.

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

No. This is not how it works. I don't know from who or what sources you are getting your "knowledge" from, but you need to abandon it. I can assure you, the real world does not work this way. What you wrote doesn't even make logical sense.

Originally Posted by Robert

I don't think you are going to get through to her, she seems to have the kind of economic knowledge you can only gain after a few hits on the bong.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You can go into the ghettos and make them nice and pretty and nothing will change. It's been tried before in New Orleans and it failed. We have to put limits on the duration of welfare and how much a person can receive before anything will force most recipients off of it.

Of course not all evacuees were poor! My daughter was one of them but she used her money to start rebuilding her home instead of buying a luxury vehicle. Yet, I personally know quite a few that abused the money. One neighbor spent a month traveling in Florida while another bought a 2005 Navigator! Others I know were a little less frivolous, buying big screen t.v.s and such. There were many accounts of abuse on the local news and many accounts of people bitching that the government isn't rebuilding their homes. The pisser of that is that due to a clerical error, I had no insurance and yet received just enough from FEMA to cover the cost of my new roof. The rest of the money I need is in the form of an SBA loan which I will have to pay back. But those that lived in the projects in New Orleans are still living in other cities on FEMA money while waiting for their homes to be rebuilt for them. Is that fair? Hell no! I've worked hard for what I have and I'm thankful that I could get an SBA loan, but why should I have to pay back something that so many others are getting for free? I'll tell you why. It's because I'm not a welfare recipient and therefore am expected to pay my own way and theirs!
Fine, you folks that want to keep the welfare system, go ahead, but realize that you're just putting a bandaid over a festering sore without treating it first. I wonder how many of you that support the system would do so if your payments were voluntary. I doubt too many would.

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

I'm not suggesting that they should be forced to have their tubes tied. They would only have to do so if they want OUR money. As for violations, how does theft fit into your scenario. If I'm forced to pay for a deadbeat that decides to have a half dozen kids, isn't that theft? Where's my right to keep my personal property fit into your right to personal privacy and well-being?

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

I don't do drugs. I have a child.

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

You are punishing the majority for the minority, then. I'm not ignoring your post. I have quite a few others who I have to respond to.

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

It's not theft per se. You cannot weed out abusers of welfare. I agree that it annoys me when people keep having kids and cannot afford them because they are only making their children suffer from their actions. However, letting these people go poor and homeless would also make their children suffer. Can't do that. You can't starve out and take their homes away by cutting welfare.

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

We can't?! Since when? And Why not? Why should working Americans be forced to support people that choose not to work and choose to have more kids than they can afford? You're young and ideal, but I've been paying for a fucked up welfare state for 30 years and only see the lkevel of illegitimacy go up. I'm sick of paying for someone else's irresponsibility, I'd let the deadbeats starve and make their kids wards of the state. No fucking around with bleeding heart bullshit.


It's not capitalism's fault that people decide to have more kids than they can afford. It's not capitalism's fault that they dropped out of school to get high and fool around. It's not capitalism's fault that they got pregnant because they screwed every Tom, Dick or Harry, that paid one iota of attention to them, without any birth control or they were too stoned at the time to use any. It's not capitalism's fault that they had no self-discipline and couldn't hold a decent job because they couldn't get their sorry asses out of bed on time for more than a few days in a row and got fired.
If you don't think that the above is reality, then you spent your life in a good neighborhood and are clueless............................I didn't and I'm not.