Slap, you raise a good point, however, there are many instances inwhich a person is basically forced to give up their constitutional rights. If you've ever been to a doctor in the state of California (and I'm not sure if CA is the only state that does this, but I doubt it) you had to sign an arbitration agreement wherein you sign away your right to have any malpractice disputes settled in a united states court of law. Instead, you agree that any and all matters will be handled by a panel of "unbiased" individuals. Now, I know that whoever ends up on such a panel, if the need for one should arise, would most likely NOT be fair and impartial. That panel would be chosen by the doctor's/medical facility's insurance company. But I would not have been able to recieve any medical treatment if I hadn't signed away my right to a trial by jury in a court of law. Same goes for the welfare. Sure, something needs to be done about the millions of freeloaders taking the tax-paying citizens for a ride, but not all welfare recipients are freeloaders. Many are single mothers/fathers who need a little temporary help while they get back on their feet. Should people such as them have to be basically forced to give up one of the most important and fundamental constitutional rights just so their children can eat? That's an extremely discerning proposition despite the current state of our welfare system.
Originally posted by BBQ PopeYou make some excellent points. However, we must treat everyone equally. If person X deserves $100, then why can't person Y also have $100, even if they do not need it? It comes down to equitable treatment. You are not treating people equally when you say one person can have money while another can't.
Slap, you raise a good point, however, there are many instances inwhich a person is basically forced to give up their constitutional rights. If you've ever been to a doctor in the state of California (and I'm not sure if CA is the only state that does this, but I doubt it) you had to sign an arbitration agreement wherein you sign away your right to have any ...[text shortened]... t's an extremely discerning proposition despite the current state of our welfare system.
By the way, I know this statement is going to open up that socialistic can of worms where some people have advantages over others and this that and the other thing. I would only like to point out Hubert Hoover who grew up in an orphange, became a millionaire, and then President of the US. Poverty didn't hold him back.
Originally posted by steve645In today's society, it is a much more lucrative business to lay on your back and pop out babies rather than work for a living.
I don't mind people being on welfare that I am spending my tax dollars for....I do protest when some of these welfare moms go on having more babies though. Birth Control!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt has nothing to do with poverty. I know you love that excuse. It has to do with the fact that most of these kids are being raised by single mothers most who shouldn't never have had a child to begin with. The Father is usually non-existing either by choice or he is in jail. They have no discipline or family structured values. Half are kicked out the house when they can no longer get any subsidies from the government due to their age Most become useless individuals who turn to drugs or crime or become unwed mothers themselves. We are now at the fourth generation in some cases. Poverty is a crutch used by politicions to get more money in a school system that is broken from the start. If poverty was the reason then I guess people like Abe Lincoln, Fulton, Whitney, etc. wouldn't have accomplished anything. I didn't have much money growing up but my parents instilled a can-do attitude in myself that has helped me my entire life. Right now I make a 6 figure salary, own my own business, able to send 2 daughters along with my wife to college and all I have is a High School diploma so faded out you barely read it. All it takes is a little hard work and diligence and you can be anything you want to be in this country. The sooner the naysayers shut up and get off their behinds to do something the better they will be also.
Wow, and it's written on their forehead that their low performance is due to low IQ and their low IQ has been determined NOT to be due to poverty?
Originally posted by slimjimNicely said.
It has nothing to do with poverty. I know you love that excuse. It has to do with the fact that most of these kids are being raised by single mothers most who shouldn't never have had a child to begin with. The Father is usually non-existing either by choice or he is in jail. They have no discipline or family structured values. Half are kicked out the house ...[text shortened]... the naysayers shut up and get off their behinds to do something the better they will be also.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRead 'The Bell Curve' by Herrnstein ,and various publications by Prof. Eysenck. But you'll need to aquire some knowledge of statistical theory to understand them if you do not already possess it.
Really? Where can I see these studies?
Originally posted by slappy115You are making a distinction that the authors of those words did not make.
Promote the general welfare not promote the minority welfare.
My point, of course, was that your statement that welfare is unconstitutional only serves to reveal that you are ignorant regarding the Constitution. Rather, you offer right-wing propaganda devoid of a knowledge of history and law. You advocate public policy based on those things that politicians say in order to garner votes from the most ignorant and prejudiced of their potential constituents.
Current popular opinion may be on your side, but history assuredly is not. If your ilk continue to prevail, it will be the end of the United States.
Originally posted by PhilodorFolks that understand statistical theory are usually pretty clear that Herrnstein and Murray do it badly.
Read 'The Bell Curve' by Herrnstein ,and various publications by Prof. Eysenck. But you'll need to aquire some knowledge of statistical theory to understand them if you do not already possess it.
Originally posted by slappy115Uh, you pay sales tax on everything you buy if you live in a state with a sales tax so you can't have taxation without representation
I finally came up with a solution to welfare today. If you want to go on welfare, you can. You can do it for the rest of your life if you want. However, if you are going to relie on the state, then the state, in a sense, controls you; and since you are not paying taxes (you ARE on welfare after all), all you have to do is forfeit your right to vote.
...[text shortened]... could go on with this for a while but I would like to see anyone else's opinions on this.