# Right to bare children



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

We came up with this topic in my english class last quarter.

We got on a topic about how China limits the number of children a family can have.

Do you think the government should be able to limit how many kids a family has?

My stance on it is........................................................

If a family can financially a physically support a child the should be able to have it and or as many as they want IF THEY CAN SUPPORT IT.

However I dont think its right to make society pay for other peoples kids when they cannot do so themselves, so I think the government should be able to say those types cannot have children, why should somebody have the ability so take your money via taxes to pay for their kids? I cannot take somebodies money to keep piranhas........................

Whats your opinion


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> If a family can financially a physically support a child the should be able to have it and or as many as they want IF THEY CAN SUPPORT IT.
> 
> However I dont think its right to make society pay for other peoples kids when they cannot do so themselves, so I think the government should be able to say those types cannot have children, why should somebody have the ability so take your money via taxes to pay for their kids? I cannot take somebodies money to keep piranhas........................
> 
> Whats your opinion


 well said. I fully agree.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

UR POINT NATE DOGG IS compelling and smart and in principle right on but we live in america and freedom is the right to do what u want no its not always fair but if the government told me how many children i could have it wouldnt be a democracy it wouldnt be america but it should be a limit if u cant support u shouldnt have them but something like that would never happen here because it wouldnt be american IMO







great topic nate


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, in a very narrow minded sense, Nate has a point. But if you start to break it down, it is complete crap. You idea would require me to go through an audit and apply for a license before I could procreate? And who would decide what the cut off amount would be? If I make $25,000.00 a year I can have one kid and if I make $40,000.00 I get to have 2? What about the amount of debt a person has, will that count against them? Do you get to consider you parent’s money, or is it only based on your income? What about when the father takes off and leaves the mother to fend for herself, if her income is not enough do we make her abort her child? Why not just sterilize everyone who does not make $25,000 a year by the time they are 25? That would at least cut down on the number of abortion. If you cannot see the error in giving freedoms to people with enough money, than I feel sorry for you.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Well, in a very narrow minded sense, Nate has a point. But if you start to break it down, it is complete crap. You idea would require me to go through an audit and apply for a license before I could procreate? And who would decide what the cut off amount would be? If I make $25,000.00 a year I can have one kid and if I make $40,000.00 I get to have 2? What about the amount of debt a person has, will that count against them? Do you get to consider you parent's money, or is it only based on your income? What about when the father takes off and leaves the mother to fend for herself, if her income is not enough do we make her abort her child? Why not just sterilize everyone who does not make $25,000 a year by the time they are 25? That would at least cut down on the number of abortion. If you cannot see the error in giving freedoms to people with enough money, than I feel sorry for you.


 exactly it is crap gross but it does make a tiny bit of sense but i would never agree to a bill like that its not american its not freedom china sucks, we rock!!!


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

Great accountant approach on the situation grosse







I'm just messing with ya, I agree with you. My mom is a CPA so that is how she looks at a lot of stuff too, so it made me laugh to hear you talking like her.

mark


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)




----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Well, in a very narrow minded sense.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

I say we just get rid of welfare. I mean the whole point of welfare was to get families back on their feet right after the Great Depression in the early 30s. It has been long since then and its purpose is no longer needed. As for people having the right to bare children...let them bare as many as they want...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

well said, natt. Welfare is a waste


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> I say we just get rid of welfare. I mean the whole point of welfare was to get families back on their feet right after the Great Depression in the early 30s. It has been long since then and its purpose is no longer needed. As for people having the right to bare children...let them bare as many as they want...


 that is basically what I am talking about, most people just take advantage of welfare. there are some that truely deserve it to though

Id like to see welfare done away with

and my perspective isnt narrow, my mom raised me as a single parent barely making more than minimum wage and she never went on welfare, so if she could do it so should everyone else.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

yeah, no welfare means that it'll force ppl to think twice about getting a kid when theyre really not prepared for one

Unfortunately, its apparently not a big issue with the govt... god only knows why...


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

And how would anyone conclude to who deserve welfare and who doesnt??



> yeah, no welfare means that it'll force ppl to think twice about getting a kid when theyre really not prepared for one


I dont think welfare has anything to do with peoples decisions if they should want or have a kid. YOu'd need to be more indepth in why folks make their decisions about babies, whether they want to or not. Teen pregnancy.. abortion rights.. accidents..


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

RhomZilla said:


> And how would anyone conclude to who deserve welfare and who doesnt??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


accidents = abortion
teen pregnancy = abortion
Getting pregnant, and letting religious/moral convictions sucker you into keeping a baby = deserved ruin on your future, no welfare, ur fukt, u deserved it.

abortion all the way, to hell with welfare

ur right tho, i overexaggerated welfare's direct influence on children in the initial post


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

they way I look at pregnancy, you took the risk going into it, no birth control is trustable in my opinion, if you cant handle abortion you better keep your pants on


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

no kidding


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> they way I look at pregnancy, you took the risk going into it, no birth control is trustable in my opinion, if you cant handle abortion you better keep your pants on


 Oh, so you are saying you have never had sex with out the intent to reproduce? Because that is exactly what you are saying. Understand you have no say if a lady gets pregnant whether you become a father or not.
Man I wish I was as ignorant as some...it must be nice to go through life thinking everyone will agree with your decissions. You really think you have a say if some chick you had sex with in a bar, when you were so loaded you dont even remember, decides to have the kid......ignorant.
And to tell someone they cant have a child because they dont earn the amount of money you think they need to support that child is unbelievably egotistical. Who are you to tell someone they may or maynot have a child.








Grow up and join the real world.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Sir Nathan XXI said:
> 
> 
> > they way I look at pregnancy, you took the risk going into it, no birth control is trustable in my opinion, if you cant handle abortion you better keep your pants on
> ...


 no no thats not what I was saying nor did I intend to imply it


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

basically what I am saying is that if my mom barely making more than minimum wage back in the day, could raise me, nobody else has an excuse to be on welfare and have a kid, therefore making taxpayers pay for their kid, my mom was a single parent at that time

everyone makes decisions in who they decide to bang, so if you dont like the consequences dont do it is what I was saying, its like playing with dynamite, you could be flirting with disaster is what I am saying

to me I could care less how many kids somebody has as long as I dont have to pay for them via welfare (which I really think is corrupt and lienant in most cases, but not all)

if you dont like my opinion its no reason to give me the bird, I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours, but I dont give you such gestures for it


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Well I hope you understand Nate that if you get a girl pregnant, you do not make the decision whether she has an abortion or not. If she decides to have the child, congrats, you are a father. I do not necessaraly agree with this but this is the way it is.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Dont take things so personaly Nate, I just love the smiley and happen to think your possition in this argument stems from ignorance. When you are put in a possition your mother was in, then you can speak. My mom raised 2 sons with no public assistance and worked 2 jobs and I would never put myself on the same level as her. So I understand what you are saying and dont necessaraly disagree, but I think you are being very ignorant and narrow in your view. I think there is mass abuse of the welfare system, but there are also some that need the help and to make a blanket policy is foolish.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Dont take things so personaly Nate, I just love the smiley and happen to think your possition in this argument stems from ignorance. When you are put in a possition your mother was in, then you can speak. My mom raised 2 sons with no public assistance and worked 2 jobs and I would never put myself on the same level as her. So I understand what you are saying and dont necessaraly disagree, but I think you are being very ignorant and narrow in your view. I think there is mass abuse of the welfare system, but there are also some that need the help and to make a blanket policy is foolish.


 I agree, I just hate seeing families live off welfare and then their children do the same, and so on and so on, I have seen it many times, they will have like 4 or 5 kids, then all their kids do the same

thats what pisses me off, thats all I am saying


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

And I agree with you. Although I dont know the solution, it is not to tell people whether they can have children or not. Maybe a system where we dont pay more for each child and cut off the increase after 2 kids. I dont know, but what I do know is that I dont want the government telling me if I am worthy of having children or not. If that was the case, my mom probably would not have qualified, and if you were that impoverished, neither would yours.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> And I agree with you. Although I dont know the solution, it is not to tell people whether they can have children or not. Maybe a system where we dont pay more for each child and cut off the increase after 2 kids. I dont know, but what I do know is that I dont want the government telling me if I am worthy of having children or not. If that was the case, my mom probably would not have qualified, and if you were that impoverished, neither would yours.


 very true, perhaps putting a total limit on funds for children would be the answer, I think families should be able to make these decisions on their own though, we need better morals and perhaps this wouldnt be a problem, but I dunno


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

> Well I hope you understand Nate that if you get a girl pregnant, you do not make the decision whether she has an abortion or not. If she decides to have the child, congrats, you are a father. I do not necessaraly agree with this but this is the way it is.


Sadly, thats true. It is the girl's choice whether to keep the child or not. Hopefully, she will choose whats best for the child...



> they way I look at pregnancy, you took the risk going into it, no birth control is trustable in my opinion, if you cant handle abortion you better keep your pants on


You swear like it only takes one to tango here buddy. In reality you took of your pants too so you better be able to take the responsibility too. I wish guys could understand what a woman goes through when they find out they're pregnant...and then to make things worse the guy thinks like Nate's above statement, "oh well you better keep your pants on..." as if they didnt do anything...


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Saying you would like to "end welfare" is saying you would like to cut off many Americans current lifeblood. Everyone here knows that I am conservative...even a Republican....but even I would not just tout "DOWN WITH WELFARE!"...."Let the poor people fend for themselves"....I mean come on, that idea is not plausable in the real world. It is equivalent to disciplining somebody by setting them loose in a distant forest and force them to find their way back alone.

Is welfare abused? Yes. Is it a burden on the better off? Yes. Is it necessary in todays world? Absolutely....it is a reality that some people just dont have the resources to get a leg up in this go go go capatilistic world, does this mean we should leave them in the gutter to rot? NO.

Forcing welfare reform might be a better stance then claiming to just get rid of it. I am sure a lot of people that worked at Enron had the same view of welfare when they were pulling down $3000 a week checks with a fat retirement.

x


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Mrs Natt, I meant the boy has to keep his pants on too, I did mean both of the partners

I agree we need some sort of welfare, but our current system isnt setup well enough for my liking


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I am sure a lot of people that worked at Enron had the same view of welfare when they were pulling down $3000 a week checks with a fat retirement.


And that sums it up.



> r Nathan XXI Posted on May 2 2003, 03:39 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mrs Natt, I meant the boy has to keep his pants on too, I did mean both of the partners
> 
> I agree we need some sort of welfare, *but our current system isnt setup well enough for my liking*


The hypothetical Nate. In this scenario you are single; You are working, you become injuried so that you cannot work, no insurance, bills are piling up from medical, you are about to be evicted, creditors are after you. What is your solution without govenment help?

Hypothetical 2; You are married, children to support, same problems as above; What is your solution without government help?


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I agree Frank, those kind of people deserve welfare, its others that try to live off of it as long as they can that piss me off


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Frank- If your injured at work they have workman's comp and if your not injured at work...isnt there someway your work can pay you like in sick leave or something?! True it will only last for so long...but....thats why we have the ability to claim "Unemployment" if we do lose our jobs and are not able to find a quick replacement.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Frank- If your injured at work they have workman's comp and if your not injured at work...isnt there someway your work can pay you like in sick leave or something?! True it will only last for so long...but....thats why we have the ability to claim "Unemployment" if we do lose our jobs and are not able to find a quick replacement.


 I think he meant if you get let go or laid off


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 2 2003, 03:49 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I agree Frank, those kind of people deserve welfare, its others that try to live off of it as long as they can that piss me off


That's not answering my question. These are my questions to you:

*The hypothetical Nate. In this scenario you are single; You are working, you become injuried so that you cannot work, no insurance, bills are piling up from medical, you are about to be evicted, creditors are after you. What is your solution without govenment help?

Hypothetical 2; You are married, children to support, same problems as above; What is your solution without government help?*



> Ms_Nattereri Posted on May 2 2003, 03:50 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank- If your injured at work they have workman's comp and if your not injured at work...isnt there someway your work can pay you like in sick leave or something?!


 This is a real life question Karen. Workman's comp does not work the way people think it does once you try to collect its benefits. Same goes with SS, VA and other government programs. The scenario above is to see what Nate thinks since he opened the door on what type of solution he would propose.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Frank I meant I agree with you, I assume you mean they will need welfare, and I agree that they need it in those cases, I dont think all welfare is bad, just those who abuse it and take advantage of it


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 2 2003, 04:01 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank I meant I agree with you, I assume you mean they will need welfare, and I agree that they need it in those cases, I dont think all welfare is bad, just those who abuse it and take advantage of it


Nate's remarks: _I agree we need some sort of welfare, but our current system isnt setup well enough for my liking_......

Agreeing with me is not the issue; I think vast majority of Americans would agree (and those not Americans). So I ask again what is your solution?

(ie; Who pays for it? how much? what agency? and for how long? what is the criteria for your program?)

PS: This all ties in with your opening question about children and welfare.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I meant we should keep welfare, but modify it, so taxpayers would be paying for it, we just need to make it so people cannot leach off and take advantage of it


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 2 2003, 04:16 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I meant we should keep welfare, but modify it, so taxpayers would be paying for it, we just need to make it so people cannot leach off and take advantage of it


Nate, please read the questions and answer it the way it was asked by me.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > Ms_Nattereri Posted on May 2 2003, 03:50 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Frank- If your injured at work they have workman's comp and if your not injured at work...isnt there someway your work can pay you like in sick leave or something?!
> 
> ...


 Yeah, I know workman's comp tries to pay you the cheapest amount as well as medical. When my mom had to claim for it, it was nothing but a big hassle with them.

As for Social Security, it makes me mad that Ill have to pay into it, just to hear that theyre thinking about taking it away.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Ms_Nattereri Posted on May 2 2003, 04:18 PM ..Yeah, I know workman's comp tries to pay you the cheapest amount as well as medical. When my mom had to claim for it, it was nothing but a big hassle with them.....As for Social Security, it makes me mad that Ill have to pay into it, just to hear that theyre thinking about taking it away.


Your just getting a tiny itty bitty taste of the real system. Its not what people think it is that have had to apply or living on it.

But would like to see Nate's reply to his _I agree we need some sort of welfare, but our current system isnt setup well enough for my liking...... _. What exactly is his liking based on my 2 scenarios.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

i really dont know enough about the real system to make an opinion....i just know that A LOT of people depend on it so taking it away would cause a lot of harm to them..

I also think it takes some very very smart people to think of viable solutions to any problems the current system may have.....


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Xenon Posted on May 2 2003, 04:26 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i really dont know enough about the real system to make an opinion....i just know that A LOT of people depend on it so taking it away would cause a lot of harm to them..


 and YOU, never forget about you. Today you are healthy, tomorrow you could suffer a medical problem that prevents you from work for supporting yourself and your loved ones if you have wife and children. Unless of course the wife should then be the sole-provider to cover all costs. But that's not part of the scenario, at least not yet.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

hastatus said:


> > Xenon Posted on May 2 2003, 04:26 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > i really dont know enough about the real system to make an opinion....i just know that A LOT of people depend on it so taking it away would cause a lot of harm to them..
> 
> ...


 I dont know about you but I plan on getting a sugar-momma!


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

here's my stance on baring children:

first, government does not have the right to limit the parents right to bare numerous children, *UNLESS* there is an overpopulation problem (ie. china). second, if you can't provide for yourself, then how can you provide for your family!

my stance on welfare:

welfare is meant for the government to give financial aide for those who cannot provide it for themselves. it's not meant for lazy-ass motherf__kers to sit around at home watching TV, eating their f__king bonbons while my ass works hard for a living! i say the government enacts a law that limits the time a person can be on welfare, for instance like 6 months. 6 months is enough time for the person(s) to find a job and start making a living, if the person has not found a job after 6 months, and provides enough valid reasons as to WHY they have not found a job yet, then the government should consider granting that person(s) another 3 months to find a job, otherwise, they should be kicked off the welfare program! However, i find it hard for a person to have NOT found a job during the 6month period, due to the fact that the government has provided so many programs to help minorities advance in america!

-james


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> my stance on welfare:
> 
> welfare is meant for the government to give financial aide for those who cannot provide it for themselves. it's not meant for lazy-ass motherf__kers to sit around at home watching TV, eating their f__king bonbons while my ass works hard for a living! i say the government enacts a law that limits the time a person can be on welfare, for instance like 6 months. 6 months is enough time for the person(s) to find a job and start making a living, if the person has not found a job after 6 months, and provides enough valid reasons as to WHY they have not found a job yet, then the government should consider granting that person(s) another 3 months to find a job, otherwise, they should be kicked off the welfare program! However, i find it hard for a person to have NOT found a job during the 6month period, due to the fact that the government has provided so many programs to help minorities advance in america!
> 
> -james


 I believe when Clinton was in office he made it so that you could only be on welfare for something like a couple of years or so. I dont remember, however, our economy sucks right now so it can be understandable for people not being able to find a job. I mean theres people with college degrees that are getting laid off left and right and yet have no where to turn to, to get a job.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> BlazedSpecV said:
> 
> 
> > my stance on welfare:
> ...


 I was told this too in my class debate


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> (BlazedSpecV @ May 2 2003, 09:59 AM)
> my stance on welfare:
> 
> *welfare is meant for the government to give financial aide for those who cannot provide it for themselves.* it's not meant for lazy-ass motherf__kers to sit around at home watching TV, eating their f__king bonbons while my ass works hard for a living! *i say the government enacts a law that limits the time a person can be on welfare, for instance like 6 months. 6 months is enough time for the person(s) to find a job and start making a living, if the person has not found a job after 6 months, and provides enough valid reasons as to WHY they have not found a job yet, then the government should consider granting that person(s) another 3 months to find a job, otherwise, they should be kicked off the welfare program! However, i find it hard for a person to have NOT found a job during the 6month period, due to the fact that the government has provided so many programs to help minorities advance in america!*


So using your formula above excluding lazy-asses, then those that fit into your category; _welfare is meant for the government to give financial aide for those who cannot provide it for themselves._

They will be given 9 months to find work, regardless of disability, illness, or mental capacity. Interesting you think they should be simply tossed out into the streets to fend for themselves. Then you would not be opposed to simply euthanizing them or perhaps tossing them into jail since the alternative will be crime or starvation?

Just wondering how your solution will solve the problem after those 9 months are up?


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

the reason why i came up with my theory/idea is because i have noticed that a lot of minorities have taken advantage of the welfare system. for example, i reside near this residential area where about 85% of the people that reside there are illegal hispanic immigrants. the area consists of project housings. each day, that i drive through this area, the first thing that i observed is all the guys standing around doing nothing but just talking or sun-bathing. i did some research on this community, and almost the entire community is on welfare.

anyways my point is, that welfare IS intended to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, not for a f__kin asshole to sit around on the fence talking BS. if you want me to revise my "idea" for the welfare system, i will.

i say that there be two types of welfare. one type of wellfare is for the disabled [ie. wheelchairs, amputations, medical conditions that create a hazard to himself]. and the other type of welfare program is like the one i situated above, the 6/9 month welfare plan.

as to your question: "Just wondering how your solution will solve the problem after those 9 months are up? " - Hastatus

its not hard find a job in the great US of A. i mean, its not that hard to say "would you like fries with that?" in english, or to work as a janitorial worker. Most importantly of all, the US government has enacted programs that DO help minorities to find work in the "Land of Opportunity"

-james


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> BlazedSpecV Posted on May 2 2003, 07:25 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the reason why i came up with my theory/idea is because i have noticed that a lot of minorities have taken advantage of the welfare system. *for example, i reside near this residential area where about 85% of the people that reside there are illegal hispanic immigrants.* the area consists of project housings. each day, that i drive through this area, the first thing that i observed is all the guys standing around doing nothing but just talking or sun-bathing. i did some research on this community, and almost the entire community is on welfare.
> 
> ...


Ok, then your idea is to exclude minorities (meaning hispanics, blacks, asian's and all others that are not anglo-saxon origin). Ok I see your point. Then what about anglo-saxon. Are they entitled to recieve welfare if they do not fit into that 9 month time slot? And since you have put _illegal minorities_ in the mix. What about illegal anglo-saxons (ie; French, German, English, etc. etc. etc.)? Or are these ok in your scheme of things?

You still have not answered the main part of the question what do you do with them after the 9 months is up?

Just for the record (I'm getting current data) this is the breakdown via this older record:

With regard to AFDC the figures are:

White 38.8%
Black 39.8
Hispanic 15.7
Asian 2.4
other 3.3

SEE: Andrew Hacker, _Two Nations Balck and White: Separate, Hostile, Unequal_, Scribners, 1992, p. 87.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> its not hard find a job in the great US of A. i mean, its not that hard to say "would you like fries with that?" in english, or to work as a janitorial worker. Most importantly of all, the US government has enacted programs that DO help minorities to find work in the "Land of Opportunity"
> 
> -james


 Again, these are rough times in our economy right now with all thats been and still is going on. Finding a job right now is difficult. People are constantly being laid off. I know that here in California alone we have shut down a lot of schools and continue to shut more down due to the big budget cut that Gray Davis did in education. As if 30 students wasnt enough for classrooms here, now there will be more.







And you say they could get a job working at the local fast food places...well that doesnt mean nothing. Especially if what your saying is true, them being illegal and all...that means they can get paid under the minimum wage...and so therefore dont make enough to make ends meet and need the welfare to help them out.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

" _Again, these are rough times in our economy right now with all thats been and still is going on. Finding a job right now is difficult._"

a sales job is NOT hard to obtain! a fast food restuarant is NOT a hard job to obtain! a janitorial job is NOT hard to obtain! there's also computer/tech jobs that are readily to obtain. Security jobs is not a hard job to obtain. My point is, if these are such hard times, why are there constant classified ads that call for a certain people.

" _I know that here in California alone we have shut down a lot of schools and continue to shut more down due to the big budget cut that Gray Davis did in education. As if 30 students wasnt enough for classrooms here, now there will be more. _"

that is due to overpopulation!

" _Especially if what your saying is true, them being illegal and all...that means they can get paid under the minimum wage...and so therefore dont make enough to make ends meet and need the welfare to help _" - Ms. Natterini

getting paid minimum wage is still somewhat of a decent pay. at least with that minimum wage, they can start goin to school and apply for financial aide. as for illegal immigrants, its not that hard to get a green card, it might take a while, but at least they'll have residency in the US

" _Then what about anglo-saxon. Are they entitled to recieve welfare if they do not fit into that 9 month time slot?_"

this is only an opinion, but what anglo-saxons have it so hard for them, that they cannot obtain welfare, or get a decent job for that matter? none, because this country is a biased country. the anglo-saxons have it way easier than minorities.

"_You still have not answered the main part of the question what do you do with them after the 9 months is up?_"

nothing, we've givent the person(s) enough time to find a job. if they have a physical/mental disability, then they would fall under my other "welfare" idea

trust me, me and spikey have debated about this a lot, his viewpoints are about the same as mind

-james


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I am sorry fellas I didnt think this sort of debate would happen ----------->


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sounds like you have thought of everything. A few question:
Do you think a minimum wage job will pay for daycare and living expenses for a single mom and her child? I can already tell you it wont.
Do you think a minimum wage job will pay the bills for a family whos main wage earner lost a $50,000 a year job? I can aready tell you it wont.
I am sure in your debates you have already thought these obsticals to your 9 month theory, and I would like to hear what you and spikey have come up with.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> I am sorry fellas I didnt think this sort of debate would happen ----------->


yeah, this is way above my head now


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

one thing I would like to add,

I think minimum wage needs to be raised to what it would take one person to be able to live on their own for full time employees, minimum wage is rediculously low, and then I know people will just raise prices to compensate that so it would accomplish anything, but to counter that they should put a cap on how much people can make, honestly who needs to make more than say 5 million dollars a year?

none of that will ever happen but it could solve alot of problems and help spread out the nations wealth


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Hmmm
I wonder what happened to blazedspecv? I saw him reading the thread and now he is gone. Maybe he went to talk to spikey. :smile:


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 3 2003, 03:36 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> one thing I would like to add,
> 
> ...


So you think minimum wage needs to be raised eh? And so employers will raise prices on goods and fire more employees because the insurance rates will go up to. Thereby feeding the problem more. If one puts a cap on what people make and by your remark_who needs to make more than say 5 million dollars a year_ then you are moving into a communist society ideology.

Now add the fact, that rent rates are high, majority demand, first, last, security deposit. If you have bad credit, becomes more difficult to rent. Now more rental companies are demanding home visits to see how you presently live before they will rent.

How are your ideas doing now BlazedSpecV? I can, if I had an inclination, show you why each of your answers are faulty given today's realities in living. You concept/opinion is based on a small margin and not the big picture. Indeed at age 50 plus, I would love to see you revisit this post and see if indeed your view of _life_ has changed any or heaven forbid, something should happen to you that prevents you from working.

I have some stats I'm planning to post including housing rates, minimum wage, etc. But I'm looking to see how your plan will ultimately help people or cause people to die from lack of shelter, food, etc. By people this includes children and women which are a minority status in this country regardless of race.

Lastly this remark: _that is due to overpopulation! 
_. Hmmmm seems I recall a German dictator mouthed the exact same words before beginning extermination of a race as their being one to many. When shall we begin? The children first? or race first?


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> a sales job is NOT hard to obtain! a fast food restuarant is NOT a hard job to obtain! a janitorial job is NOT hard to obtain! there's also computer/tech jobs that are readily to obtain. Security jobs is not a hard job to obtain. My point is, if these are such hard times, why are there constant classified ads that call for a certain people.


 That may be true, but working at McDonald's, or any other job that starts off with minimum wage WILL NOT provide enough money for rent, food, etc. ESPECIALLY if its a single parents working part-time and trying to go to school. It's just impossible without the help of welfare.

As Karen previously said, there is a 2 year limit for welfare.

All the other jobs that there are currently ads for in the newspaper, look at the qualifications, for a lot of the people that would need welfare, they wont qualify for the job.

Yes, students can take up more than one job, and work their a$$es off to make ends meet, but if they intend on staying in school, they wont have time to sleep. True, it can be done, but think. Everyone takes the easy way out. I envy those who stick to it in the long haul.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> " _Then what about anglo-saxon. Are they entitled to recieve welfare if they do not fit into that 9 month time slot?_"
> 
> *this is only an opinion, but what anglo-saxons have it so hard for them, that they cannot obtain welfare, or get a decent job for that matter? none, because this country is a biased country. the anglo-saxons have it way easier than minorities.*


 You'd be suprised what anglo-saxons go through. Granted its not nearly as bad as how some races are treated, but being white myself I know what they go through. For instance being denied from a school because of my race. Pretty petty when a government owned facility denies you because of affirmative action. I thought race didnt matter and that we were all supposed to be equal, obviously it does matter. So yes, this country is biased on certain circumstances, but theres really nothing you can do. Point Im trying to make is it doesnt matter what race you are, whether your anglo-saxon or not, theres always going to be some prejudice. No use singling them out from the rest.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Good grief. You certainly do learn a lot about people from topics like these, who's got their heads way up their ass and who doesn't have a clue. Very entertaining.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> BlazedSpecV Posted on May 3 2003, 03:15 AM ....*nothing, we've givent the person(s) enough time to find a job.* if they have a physical/mental disability, then they would fall under my other "welfare" idea


Nothing eh? then you have just created more potential criminals to feed on you, also created a situation for children to die of starvation and lack of shelter. How will you deal with them that live. Plan to exterminate them?

*if they have a physical/mental disability, then they would fall under my other "welfare" idea*

Who will pay for this welfare; housing, food, medical, etc., and how much will it be monthly?


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Pretty petty when a government owned facility denies you because of affirmative action.


 there is no more affirmative action anymore...there was a law pass against it.so no need to trip..and i am very happy about that...your school grades or your jobs background should do the talking ,not your color of your skin....


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> one thing I would like to add,
> 
> I think minimum wage needs to be raised to what it would take one person to be able to live on their own for full time employees, minimum wage is rediculously low, and then I know people will just raise prices to compensate that so it would accomplish anything, but to counter that they should put a cap on how much people can make, honestly who needs to make more than say 5 million dollars a year?
> 
> none of that will ever happen but it could solve alot of problems and help spread out the nations wealth


 Your opinion on minimum wage, economically, is devastating to business. Minimum wage in itself, economically, is very BAD. I am not saying I wanna get rid of it, just sharing the facts.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

thePACK said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty petty when a government owned facility denies you because of affirmative action.
> ...


 afirmative action has become affirmative de-scrimination in many peoples eyes


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

I happen to come across this pic in a search and thought it was funny.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

" _Hmmm
I wonder what happened to blazedspecv? I saw him reading the thread and now he is gone. Maybe he went to talk to spikey._" - Grosse

i've been busy, im sorry if i dont dedicate my entire social life to this forum! spikey is currently away with the marines, he wont be back till much later

" _You'd be suprised what anglo-saxons go through. Granted its not nearly as bad as how some races are treated, but being white myself I know what they go through. For instance being denied from a school because of my race._"

how would i be surprised? im white myself and i dont seem to have any hardships whatsoever. in my opinion, i have it easier than john. "For instance being denied from a school because of my race", how do you think a minority feels when he gets denied even though he has higher grades, participated in numerous school-functioned activities and community service; and the school allows in an anglo-saxon student who has a lower gpa, and has not participated in many school-functioned activities?

"_Nothing eh? then you have just created more potential criminals to feed on you, also created a situation for children to die of starvation and lack of shelter. How will you deal with them that live. Plan to exterminate them? _"

well, why should we help a group of people who, after given numerous chances/aides by the government, who won't even lift their asses off the couch? its basically like helping a fatman go on a diet, but he continues to eat and stay lazy! besides, i hear the US penitentiaries (sp) are quite comfortable; free cable, food, clothing, roof.

"_Who will pay for this welfare; housing, food, medical, etc., and how much will it be monthly? _"

the US tax payers.......and i mean EVERY US TAX PAYIN CITIZEN will all pay the same exact amount, except for the f**kin rich. the rich will be EXPECTED to pay a 30% higher rate than most of the US TAX PAYIN CITIZENS!

i have a question for you hastatus? why are you questioning my theoritical welfare idea? i mean, if you're here to ridicule me, then ridicule me, at least just tell me you're ridiculing me!

-james


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> besides, i hear the US penitentiaries (sp) are quite comfortable; free cable, food, clothing, roof.


And where have you heard this?! As a matter of fact, they aren't free. Nothing in life is free, everything comes at a cost. True, the food and such is free for the prisoner, but as with every other government based building...TAX PAYERS PAY FOR IT!!! However, the prisoner does have to pay for the clothing. They're shelter isn't much better than living outside. Yea, it's heated, but its not plush carpeting, or anything that would be considered really nice... Whatever your source for this information may be... I'd want to double check it before saying anything...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> BlazedSpecV Posted on May 5 2003, 04:46 AM ... i have a question for you hastatus? *why are you questioning my theoritical welfare idea?* i mean, if you're here to ridicule me, then ridicule me, at least just tell me you're ridiculing me!


Note the key words in your remarks. My questions were based out to find out where you are intellectually in today's world. If your ideas are sound then you would not feel that I was ridiculing you. If you are feeling that way, then perhaps there is something much more deep rooted in your own feelings about people in general.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

" _And where have you heard this?! As a matter of fact, they aren't free. Nothing in life is free, everything comes at a cost. True, the food and such is free for the prisoner, but as with every other government based building...TAX PAYERS PAY FOR IT!!! _"

ok, lets *FOCUS* on what i said: *"besides, i hear the US penitentiaries (sp) are quite comfortable; free cable, food, clothing, roof"*! from that sentance, i was *FOCUSING* on the inmates, because they get everything inside the penitentary for *FREE*!

"_They're shelter isn't much better than living outside. Yea, it's heated, but its not plush carpeting, or anything that would be considered really nice... _"

my welfare plan said that i would kick out lasy assh*les after a period of 6months, 9months if there was a legitimate reason why they couldn't have found a job during the 6months. Now, in kicking out these "lazy ass mofo's", they'd be living on the streets, wandering around aimlessly lookin for a buck or two. now answer me this, would you prefer living on the streets with no "heated, non-plush carpeting" shelter or would you rather commit a small crime and goto jail so that you CAN be inside a "heated, non-plush carpeting" shelter, where you get fed, and have the ability to bathe and make a little cash on the side?

"_They're shelter isn't much better than living outside._"

would you want to live outside in the f**kin cold during the DC winters? or would you rather be inside a state pent cellblock with warmth and a blanket?

"_Whatever your source for this information may be... I'd want to double check it before saying anything..._ "

its called personal experience! i've gone to jail before, because of some stupid sh*t! majority of the time, john (spikey) bails me out so that my parents won't have to, but i got caught once and he wasn't around to help! so yes, im pretty sure my "source of this information" is quite accurate!.....as for you, you might want to double check what you write before you plaster it on a topic board!

"_Note the key words in your remarks. My questions were based out to find out where you are intellectually in today's world. If your ideas are sound then you would not feel that I was ridiculing you. If you are feeling that way, then perhaps there is something much more deep rooted in your own feelings about people in general._"

to me, my idea is sound, i've thought it over throughly and had spikey-boy dissected every part of it [when he was here], and he has seen a hole or two here and there, but overall, it seemed pretty sound to him...except for the prison thing!

-james


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey BlazedspecV, do you know the cost to house a prisoner? Well, in 1990 it was approximately $22,000.00 per year. I am sure it is more now, but I dont want to take the time to look for it. How is that supposed to save the taxpayer any money? Who do you think pays for this? You really have thought this through haven't you&#8230;.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> grosse gurke Posted on May 5 2003, 06:58 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hey BlazedspecV, do you know the cost to house a prisoner? Well, in 1990 it was approximately $22,000.00 per year. I am sure it is more now, but I dont want to take the time to look for it. How is that supposed to save the taxpayer any money? Who do you think pays for this? You really have thought this through haven't you


Perhaps we should consider his own _scientific _ method in the topic of abortion and cull them as inferior. What do you think?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > grosse gurke Posted on May 5 2003, 06:58 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hey BlazedspecV, do you know the cost to house a prisoner? Well, in 1990 it was approximately $22,000.00 per year. I am sure it is more now, but I dont want to take the time to look for it. How is that supposed to save the taxpayer any money? Who do you think pays for this? You really have thought this through haven't you
> 
> ...


 Hey Frank, if that's science, I am glad I dropped out of biology in high school!


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Everyone's a scientist nowdays eh?









Btw, to answer the original topic everyone has the right to bear children, I just strongly believe that a lot of people should NOT as they aren't fit to be in the care of any living creature. Unfortunately some of them frequent our respective boards. :sad:


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Unfortunately some of them frequent our respective boards. :sad:


----------



## alvin (Jan 2, 2003)

Has anyone here earned a PHD in economics? Probably not. Let's just leave it to the pro's. I personally think if you can't afford if, don't get it (based on the original thread topic). Also, I believe Welfare is crap, but I don't have all the facts and I seriously doubt any of you know everything there is to know on the topic. People have studied this for 70 years now, and no valid equilibrium has been determined. Where the hell is John Nash when you need him. Oh, and yes, I had heard of him before the movie came out. Now here I'm going to vent.

P.S. Hey guys, I want a Ferrari (kid/house), why don't each of you (government/tax payers)send me ... oh, 1000 bucks each (welfare) so I can enjoy all life has to offer while not paying for it. I mean, I deserve it right? Oh, and I would personally like to thank the minority who got into MIT instead of me for not being white. I know this law has been changed, but just remember that next time you step onto 777 and the frickin engine falls off.

John - Wannabe Rocket scientist


----------



## cfr3 (Feb 20, 2003)

alvin said:


> Has anyone here earned a PHD in economics? Probably not. Let's just leave it to the pro's. I personally think if you can't afford if, don't get it (based on the original thread topic). Also, I believe Welfare is crap, but I don't have all the facts and I seriously doubt any of you know everything there is to know on the topic. People have studied this for 70 years now, and no valid equilibrium has been determined. Where the hell is John Nash when you need him. Oh, and yes, I had heard of him before the movie came out. Now here I'm going to vent.


 PhD's in Economics are not the people who solve this problem. The debate over welfare and affirmative action is a social issue. To begin affirmative action does not work. Artificially elevating a person into an environment they are not prepared for is a recipe for failure. I went to an extremely competitive school in an extremely competitive program. When I began there were quite a few people that were in my classes that I assumed made it in because of affirmative action. Well, after a semester about half of them remained, and after a year or two, none were left. They were setup for failure. What needs to be done is to address these issues at a much younger age.

The question of welfare is a tough one. Liberals have perpetuated the current welfare system and created the dilapidated state that exists now. I agree with the concept of welfare to help those *temporarily* down on their luck get by. However, our current system rewards people for doing nothing and just squeezing out babies. These people have received entitlements that they now believe this is their right and it is due to them. They have developed laziness and passed this on in a vicious cycle to their offspring. Thus far, the system has been unchangeable because these people will complain when there is any talk of changing welfare that leads to them having to do anything other than sit on their asses and receive my hard earned dollars. They do this by electing bleeding heart liberals such as Hillary Clinton (one of the worst people ever) so that they can protect their entitlement. Now, I am not for starving children, but I feel that there needs to be some sort of quid pro quo for the state distributed money. Instead of just issuing checks with no strings attached, I think we should do things such as subsidizing day care so parents can work to earn money. A program such as that would have many positive effects. First, it would be an opportunity to provide children with benefical environments. Second, it would force the adults to begin to take responsibility for their lives instead of just being a burden on society. Again, the problem has been liberals are dead set against removing anything that is already being given out. I blame all of our problems and those of the down trodden on those damn liberals for encouraging people to be wastes of life.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

hey g.g..just to let you know it cost $54 dollars per in-mate a day......have sheriffs in my family


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

cfr3 said:


> Instead of just issuing checks with no strings attached, I think we should do things such as subsidizing day care so parents can work to earn money. A program such as that would have many positive effects. First, it would be an opportunity to provide children with benefical environments. Second, it would force the adults to begin to take responsibility for their lives instead of just being a burden on society.


 You make some very good points! I'm impressed... I was actually thinking something quite similar... Since welfare is based on a government system, the parents could be issued Free Daycare for their children, and work right there AT the welfare building. True, there wouldn't be many open jobs, but they dont have to start off full time... Maybe just part time every few days to get started, so that everyone can get a few working hours... From there, after earning a small amount, maybe help in job placement... get a small job at some place by their house, so that they can earn some money, and work it from there...until they reached a point in the job where they have some money saved up, the daycare can remain free, as long as they keep Welfare instructed on where they're working, etc. It will then be their own choice to donate money into the Welfare Daycare so better the facility. True, this wont go on while they lag, daycare can be free for... maybe 6-9 months, giving the parent MORE than enough time in their job to save up some money. From then on, a small fee could be required, so that they become accustomed to paying for daycare.

*Dont criticize my ideas. I know they aren't all thought out, but I kept getting distracted... any questions based on my post, just ask. I'll explain myself better.*


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

thePACK said:


> hey g.g..just to let you know it cost $54 dollars per in-mate a day......have sheriffs in my family


 $54.00 per day in your state or institution, which is almost $20,000. I used a figure that covers the US and different types of crimes. I have seen a few different figures for a per inmate cost, but when you figure in the cost of appeals the average goes up for the court apointed lawyers. I like the way you think though Pack







. My point was that commiting crimes for shelter does not save the tax payers money compared to welfare.


----------



## phensway (Apr 7, 2003)

back to the original question.......... i feel that in china they have overpopulation, which directly effects their economy, so a population limitation is greatly needed to help the country prospure........ just my opinion on the question.............. prolly will someday happen in the US since the birth rate is much higher than the death rate


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

The US isn't in danger of being overpopulated. Certainly not to the extent of China. China also has or at least had some pretty brutal practices for dealing with population control. In Canada our birth rate probably wouldn't sustain the population without immigration.

China is a communist country which directly affects the economy probably even more than overpopulation but that's an entirely different conversation.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

"_Hey BlazedspecV, do you know the cost to house a prisoner? Well, in 1990 it was approximately $22,000.00 per year. I am sure it is more now, but I dont want to take the time to look for it. How is that supposed to save the taxpayer any money? Who do you think pays for this? You really have thought this through haven't you&#8230;._"

who said anything about saving tax payers money? tax payers DONT save anymore, we f**kin pay for everything. the whole reason why i came up with my version of a new welfare plan is so that i wont have to f**kin pay for lazy-ass motherfuckers who sit at home and do jack sh*t! i haven't seen your bright-ass think of a better way to get people off welfare!

"_However, our current system rewards people for doing nothing and just squeezing out babies. These people have received entitlements that they now believe this is their right and it is due to them. They have developed laziness and passed this on in a vicious cycle to their offspring. Thus far, the system has been unchangeable because these people will complain when there is any talk of changing welfare that leads to them having to do anything other than sit on their asses and receive my hard earned dollars._"

Finally, another person sees my view on how the welfare plan is being milked by lazy-ass mofos!

"_My point was that commiting crimes for shelter does not save the tax payers money compared to welfare. _"

and my point was to try to get people to work for their money, instead of having people have money handed to them for doing nothing!


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

James, you really need to calm down. This thread was made for our thoughts and stance on child restriction, which was derailed into welfare. Yea, I'll admit you make good points, its just your way of communicating them is all wrong. For one, your constant use of profanity is not needed. I understand you're angry, but really, CALM DOWN! There is no need to get all riled up over this. If you're going to censor your words, censor ALL your words, not only "f**kin" but also your constant use of "motherf**kers". Keep in mind there are many members anywhere from 10-15 on this board, and I dont think they need to be in observance of constant cussing.

My advice, however you probably wont take it...
* Calm down while responding.
* Think about what you're trying to say.
* Prove what you say.
* Dont put down everything that's said in response to your posts.
* Frank is a well respected member, and quite honestly, he doesn't deserve all the crap you're feeding him.

Those are just my thoughts, however I think the rest of the board shares my feelings. You're still new here, prove to us you're a good member, and not just someone who joined for the hell of it, and instead of making a good reputation for yourself, are showing us that you're not a very good guy... even if you are John's best friend...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> who said anything about saving tax payers money? tax payers DONT save anymore, we f**kin pay for everything. *the whole reason why i came up with my version of a new welfare plan is so that i wont have to f**kin pay for lazy-ass motherfuckers who sit at home and do jack sh*t!* i haven't seen your bright-ass think of a better way to get people off welfare!


Why do you get so angry when anyone challenges your idea? If it is the solution, you should be happy to educate us and answer our questions. 
Speaking of questions, I have one more that goes to your last statement.

You idea is centered around not paying for lazy people to sit on their ass while you work...correct? I mean this is what you have been saying from the start. Well, what do you think incarcerated people do all day? They sit there and watch TV, waiting for someone to make their next meal. How is this any different than what you are trying to prevent.

And please try to decent language......the use of constant profanity makes you look like a 15 year old throwing a tantrum.

Oh, you want to know how I would get people off welfare....I would put people to work for it. Provide free daycare and have people working for the money the state provides. The solution is not to cut people off, but to train them to enter the job market.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

" _* Frank is a well respected member, and quite honestly, he doesn't deserve all the crap you're feeding him._" - Kum

so telling Frank my ideas and vision of a new welfare system is a crap idea? And basically since im not as well-respected as frank, my entire views on different subjects if full of crap and won't be appreciated by a the likeness of Frank? Quite, honestly, I believe you have no say on what is crap and what isn't! In my opinion, most of your posts have no logical reasoning to them, its basically posting whatever pops into your head (ie...show your mugshot topic)

"_Those are just my thoughts, however I think the rest of the board shares my feelings. You're still new here, prove to us you're a good member, and not just someone who joined for the hell of it, and instead of making a good reputation for yourself, are showing us that you're not a very good guy... even if you are John's best friend... _" - Kum

i dont need to impress anyone, whether or not im john's best friend! if you agree or disagree with my points, so what! im just trying to clarify my views because people ask me questions to poke holes in my ideas, and i have NO problems with that.

"_You idea is centered around not paying for lazy people to sit on their ass while you work...correct? I mean this is what you have been saying from the start. Well, what do you think incarcerated people do all day? They sit there and watch TV, waiting for someone to make their next meal. How is this any different than what you are trying to prevent._" - Grosse

yes, that would also be true. I also plan on changin the penitentary systems as well, but thats a different thing i haven't thought about yet since john-boy isn't here to dissect my ideas. anyways, i haven't thought of that step yet, grosse. you got me there, i dunno. basically, the whole basis of my idea was to get people off welfare as quickly as possible and get them started on their "american dream."

-james


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

well blazed in all your mindless ramblings you have proved one thing correct...."ignorance is bliss"


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

"_ well blazed in all your mindless ramblings you have proved one thing correct...."ignorance is bliss"_"

is that what i did, was mindlessly ramble on? i thought i was presenting my ideas for all to look at and analyze. Well this shows that my ideas and thoughts aren't respected at all, but rather considered BS and full of crap! Thank you all for letting me share my "crap" ideas!

-james


----------

