Saturday, January 7, 2017

Free Loader: Person or Behavior?

From MP Media. RB and Jon called me on some name calling I did. Thoughts?
"I agree that the future with Trump is uncertain and risky. However I think following our previous path is equally so for different reasons. Here are the concerns as I see them. 
http://give2attain.blogspot.com/2016/10/boiling-frog.html 
I keep hoping that somehow both sides will change...
- Liberals will start insisting that poor Free Loaders change
- Conservatives will start insisting that rich Free Loaders changes 
But it seems both sides just keep digging in further to protect their preferred Free Loaders." G2A

"It seems many have not learned that calling people irredeemable racists, xenophobes, misogynists, etc tends to turn them off And I agree that most felt they could not afford another 4 years of Liberal policies.
Besides the whole "status quo politics" is unacceptable thing." G2A

"It also seems that calling people "free loaders" remains acceptable." RB

"The next four years will not be to most people's liking. Most won't be able to afford it.
What should people call those who are against others not like them when they don't like them? Do you have a PC word or so for it?" Jon

"Personally I would say that they believe differently from me. And I would not call them anything except maybe Religious Right, Republicans, Social Conservatives, People against having Illegal Workers in the USA, etc.

They disagree with you, what would you like them to call you?

RB raised a good question above when I used the term Free Loaders.. Technically I am talking about the behaviors of a group of people who are okay with letting others do the work and /or pay the money while enjoying the benefits of that labor. You have met them I am sure, in your classes, in your churches, in your committees, our society's criminals, etc.

So I should probably have said. People who are okay receiving benefits from the work of others on a consistent basis. Do you have a better term?" G2A

96 comments:

Anonymous said...

Liberals will start insisting that poor Free Loaders change

I don't know that poor people are free loaders. I expect every reader of this page has for decades, paid more in income taxes than billionaire Donald Trump.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

How about "followers"? People who recognize when others do good work and are willing to support them in it. And if the "Leader" is somebody telling them to take the free food stamps and cash benefits and subsidized housing and medical care, how can you fault them for going along? On the other end, suppose Congress passes a tax break for those who invest in, say, cattle ranches. Are you going to fault those folks who suddenly decide to go into the moo business?

Anonymous said...

And if the "Leader" is somebody telling them to take the free food stamps and cash benefits and subsidized housing and medical care, how can you fault them for going along?

Actually, food stamps and other benefits are not free. Someone has to pay for them. It's only a question of whom.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

Most people voted for Hillary. Many people who didn't vote for her were misled to believe her use of a private email server was scandalous. It wasn't.

Use are the takers who use snap; and medicaid benefits?

Recent studies show that 44% of all SNAP participants are children (age 18 or younger), with almost two-thirds of SNAP children living in single-parent households. In total, 76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 11.9% go to households with disabled persons, and 10% go to households with senior citizens.

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) currently cover over 74 million low-income Americans, who fall into four main groups: infants and children; pregnant women, parents, and other nonelderly adults; individuals of all ages with disabilities; and very low-income seniors, most of whom are also covered by Medicare. Three-quarters of nonelderly adult Medicaid enrollees are working. Children make up about half of all Medicaid enrollees, nonelderly adults make up one-quarter, and seniors and people with disabilities make up one-quarter.

I have been reading this book over vacation Why Do People Who Need Help From the Government Hate It So Much? It is very good. I will comment more about it sometime. It fits well with this new post.


Laurie said...

The Most Extreme Party Coalition Since the Civil War

John said...

Laurie, I keep telling you that you should stop reading that Liberal stuff... Well unless you like fictional "horror stories".

Stick to CNN, New York Times, NBC, BBC, etc.

jerrye92002 said...

"Someone has to pay for them. " -- Hiram

That really has no bearing on whether somebody is a "freeloader" or not. In fact, with government as the intermediary, it becomes a purely judgment-free transaction. The government makes no such judgments, they just write the checks, and the taxpayers never see or know the recipients, they just pay their taxes, usually grudgingly.

jerrye92002 said...

"Many people who didn't vote for her were misled to believe her use of a private email server was scandalous. It wasn't." -- Laurie

You are correct. It was not scandalous, it was stupid and dangerous and it was ILLEGAL. The scandal would be if she used it for corrupt purposes and while there is lots of circumstantial evidence of that, it is not conclusive, mostly because she wiped the server, "like with a cloth." Maybe when they get done looking at Weiner's phone we'll know more (though the fact he has them is a breach of security and federal law).

Laurie said...

I think the freeloaders that you are concerned about are the working poor. I think the freeloaders that I am concerned about are the 1% and the .1%

I think the greedy 1% have a bigger impact on the economy and on the wealth and income of regular people like me than those on the bottom who receive some form of govt assist.

about my side topic - the radical GOP - here is a little bit about what I expect them to do, which seems radical to me:

major cuts in medicaid - highly likely
propose or try to privatise medicare - won't succeed
repeal Obamacare-loss of insurance for millions who get it through the individual market -highly likely
major cuts in environmental regulation and reg of the financial sector - highly likely
smallish cuts in SS - highly likely
major cuts to snap- highly likely
major tax cuts for the rich- highly likely
major increase in the deficit - highly likely

So what do others expect Trump and the GOP to accomplish? (for better or worse)

Anonymous said...

That really has no bearing on whether somebody is a "freeloader" or not.

I don't think the people who paid for them are the freeloaders. Let's remember, they are called entitlements for a reason.

While our billionaire president because if his shall we say checkered business career, doesn't pay taxes, most of us do. And when you pay for the benefits you receive, it's tough to make the case that you are a "freeloader".

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
The way the system is set up, that upper 1% you disparage is paying for all of the tax credits, benefits and services that the lower 10% receive in handouts.

Please also remember that the lower 10% as you noted are made up of adults who had more children than they could afford to care for. And adults who failed to as children to learn in school or in adulthood. Please help me understand how these folks are helping America to thrive?

I don't think that making more babies who can barely read, write, do math and/or follow laws count as helping...

What do you think or do regarding people in Church, at work, in classes, etc who slack off, let others carry the load and then seek the benefits? Do you just keep letting them? Do you confront them and tell them to ship up? Other?

Jerry,
Adults make their choices. Just because the government offers financial support for a single woman with 3 children from 3 different sperm suppliers. That does not mean a responsible adult gets knocked up by 3 men.

Same for the man, just because the government supports the kids in need. That does not mean a responsible adult knocks up multiple women. For someone who talks about personal responsibility, you sure like to make excuses for people who make poor decisions.

What do you think or do regarding people in Church, at work, in classes, etc who slack off, let others carry the load and then seek the benefits? Do you just keep letting them? Do you confront them and tell them to ship up? Do you make excuses for them and blame it on others? Other?

John said...

Hiram,
Do you write out extra checks to the government?

Why do you think Trump should pay more than he is legally obligated to?

We know that the IRS goes through his statements often... Do you think they are incompetent and missing his "free loading" / fraud?

I guess I don't think of legally using the tax code as free loading... Are all of us who take a mortgage interest deduction doing something improper by claiming it? Should we give more of our money to the government just because?

jerrye92002 said...

"What do you think or do regarding people in Church, at work, in classes, etc who slack off, let others carry the load and then seek the benefits? Do you just keep letting them? Do you confront them and tell them to ship up?"

Exactly. When you are dealing with real people, you DO confront them (the true freeloaders, not just somebody that needs some help) and stop working with them. But when government rips open your wallet and hands that money to somebody you will never know or even meet, that kind of "cheerful giving and gratitude" that is essential to the effectiveness of a charitable exchange goes out the window.

"Adults make their choices." Yes they do, and they make them responsibly for the most part. For example, they will send their kids to a failing school because it's "free" to them and they cannot afford otherwise. They accepted welfare because they could not get a job that paid more, and they couldn't get child care. The Baby Daddy didn't marry and support the kids because no social or legal pressure prodded him to do so, and HE didn't have a job either. You keep saying we have to correct all these social pathologies but don't seem to recognize that we aren't dealing with cattle that can (or should) be prodded into little boxes. They are real human beings who react intelligently to the choices before them. Make better choices available and most of the problem solves itself.

Here's another example of that. Our betters have decided we need some light rail lines, and that we have to subsidize them and penalize people who use cars. But according to experts at the UofM "People make their transportation decisions intelligently. If you can take them where they want to go, when they want to go, and for less than the cost of driving, they will take it." Likewise, if you can supply me with energy that is cheaper and equally reliable to the coal-fired electricity I now have, I'll buy it. If it happens to lower CO2 I don't care, but you won't need massive subsidies or mandates to make me choose it.

Anonymous said...

Do you write out extra checks to the government?

No but I do write checks.

Why do you think Trump should pay more than he is legally obligated to?

Yes, I do. Freeloading isn't right just because through highly questionable legal maneuvering, it isn't worth it to the government that proves it is illegal.

Do you think they are incompetent and missing his "free loading" / fraud?

I think the rich people like Trump lobby for tax laws which are highly favorable to themselves so they can freeload.

I guess I don't think of legally using the tax code as free loading..

Is legally taking advantage of welfare benefits offered under law freeloading? Trump sought the protection of the federal government from his creditors when they were threatening his very economic existence as a result of the bad choices he made. Is that really so different from a welfare mom who accepts food stamps? Who has hurt the economy more?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, that is a brilliant distinction you have just made. Using benefits available under the law, rather accepting welfare on the one end or avoiding taxes on the other, is not "freeloading" in the sense of doing something of questionable legality. And "freeloading" is a moral concept. The law does not make moral judgments.

Take government out of the equation and you can talk of morality. If I accept a check from you and give you nothing in return, not even a "thank you," I have a moral flaw. If I owe you a debt and refuse to pay, likewise, but if I cannot pay, well, that's tough for both of us but at least we're both still honest.

So the question of which harms the economy more is easy. The welfare recipient consumes public wealth and adds nothing back to that wealth. Under bankruptcy, the economic activity took place and societal wealth increased, only the individual beneficiary differs.

Anonymous said...

So the question of which harms the economy more is easy

Donald certainly damaged the economy on a massive scale. For one thing, he chose to go into the gambling business which is morally questionable, and economically valueless. He lost huge sums of money, both his and other people's. It's those losses that have relieved him from tax liability in subsequent decades.

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry,
"you DO confront them " And yet whenever I speak of confronting Baby Makers and holding them accountable, you claim that they were just victims of the system.

As for humans and cattle, it seems to me that you see them more as cattle. Just offer them some food and a warm bed, and they will make babies, grow complacent, be happily dependent and grow in population to eat all the food available.

These are humans who are capable of understanding and thinking. They should be able to understand the concept of being a useful productive part of a society vs choosing to be a drain on it.

From the other post...

A woman for Jerry... It is the government's fault...
Why should I work?

John said...

Hiram,
How exactly do you think Trump's poor business decisions hurt our economy.

The buildings were built, the employees are working, the property taxes are paid, all of the employees are paying taxes, etc. It seems that the only people who lost on the deal are a bunch "rich investors" and Trump.

Where exactly is Trump Free Loading off the government?

Now let's compare this to the single Mom with 3 kids from 3 different Fathers... And the tax payers funding the education, food, housing, healthcare, etc for these 3 children. With the unfortunate assumption that kids are likely to follow in their Parents foot steps and maybe do jail time. So society is going to invest ~$1,000,000 into these children to get them to age 18. How will society gain from this huge investment?

How do we encourage stable 2 Parent families instead?

Anonymous said...

How exactly do you think Trump's poor business decisions hurt our economy.

They resulted in huge financial losses to those who entrusted him with their money.

Where exactly is Trump Free Loading off the government?

Trump get the benefits of living here without paying for them. He doesn't pay for the armies that protect his hotels; he doesn't pay for the schools that provide him with employees, he doesn't pay for the roads that lead to his parking ramps. I could go on.

Now let's compare this to the single Mom with 3 kids from 3 different Fathers.

Lets. Did the single mom borrow billions of dollars from banks that she didn't pay back? Did she open casinos which are nothing more than financial predators? Does she require huge security expenditures to allow her to walk to her home in New York? Once she gets through tough times, won't she go back to work doing something constructive?

I am happy to fund things like education, housing and what not. I have never hired packs of lawyers and lobbyists to work to avoid responsibilities in that area. I am not a financial predator.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"you DO confront them " And yet whenever I speak of confronting Baby Makers and holding them accountable, you claim that they were just victims of the system.-- John

When you speak of confrontation, you are doing no such thing. You are not engaging in a face-to-face meeting with someone to whom you have given something of value and with some expectation of behavior that they have not met. You are thinking that government should do this, somehow, and it simply isn't possible, and that is the fundamental problem with public welfare versus private charity. Most private charities, both for scarce resources and for a desire to actually HELP, do not suffer true freeloaders for long. Government has tolerated them for generations. Remember the basic rule, that you get more of what you pay for? If government pays for irresponsible behavior and punishes responsible behavior (get married or find a job and we cut your benefits), guess what happens?

"As for humans and cattle, it seems to me that you see them more as cattle."
And yet I am the one claiming they can be responsible for their own choices, /IF/ reasonable choices are offered to them. It seems the decision many of these folks face is this: "We will give you $1300/month (like what's her name in the video) if you sit around and do nothing, or you can go find a fulltime minwage job and earn $1200/month." You really want to fault them for an intelligent decision like that?

Laurie said...

why do you hate low income people so much? did you read my facts that most low income people who benefit from govt assistance are working?

I finished skim reading strangers in their own land and am now even more pessimistic about the future of the country over the next 4 years (and I was pretty pessimistic to begin with.) I am slightly hopeful that a few moderate GOP senators will mitigate the damage.

John said...

Laurie,
I don't hate anyone, well I can't think of anyone right now...

I disapprove of people who make babies that they:
- can not afford to feed, house and clothe
- are unable or unwilling to raise so they are ready for Kindergarten at age 5
- are unable or unwilling to make sure they get to school, do their homework, work with their teachers, etc to graduate ready to face the world.

Now Jerry and yourself seem to be happy to give these folks a pass for this form of child abuse / neglect. I am not.

Jerry thinks that it is all the fault of the government and Liberals because the Baby Makers are cattle who go to the closest and easiest trough. I disagree because those troughs are available to everyone and yet only a certain group of people end up there generation after generation.

You seem to think it would all be different if we just gave them more money, food, healthcare, housing, etc. Which of course we tried for 50+ years, and it explosively grew the number of single parent households and dependent children.

Now Jerry at least has a drastic plan for weaning them. He wants to cut their benefits and have some "Super non-Governmental Social Worker" train them to be self sufficient and personally responsibility. He apparently believes they all are hard working smart people who will embrace the change and keep their babies from suffering.

So other than doubling down on the failed "War on Poverty" policies. What do you want to do to truly help these people. Not just feed them so they can pro-create like bunnies?

John said...

Hiram,
I sure hope Trump some day releases his tax records so we can put this argument to bed.

So let's for argument's sake assume that Trump Inc pays "10,000 times what you do for all taxes" in the form of property taxes, etc... Is he still free loading just because we are unaware of what he pays in Federal Income tax?

What about the millions of dollars in yearly Income taxes that he pays by employing 1,000's of people?

Now Trump is not my hero by any means. But his activities do generate a massive amount tax revenues for this country. Without him and his misadventures in morality and business, there are a lot of people who wou be looking for a different way to make a living.

If "the single Mom with 3 kids from 3 different Fathers" was not here, there would be one less case on a social workers docket. And our society would be $1+ million wealthier. Yes? No? Rationale?

jerrye92002 said...

" I disagree because those troughs are available to everyone."

THERE is the disconnect, right there. Please explain how someone who can't find a job at all, let alone one that pays better than welfare, can afford to send their child to a private school that might educate them better?

Do you really believe that with the labor force participation rate the lowest it's been in 20 years that those who have never been in the labor force have a better chance of a good paying job than someone who had one before?

"He wants to cut their benefits and have some "Super non-Governmental Social Worker" train them to be self sufficient and personally responsibility."

That is totally incorrect. If we are going to have government welfare at all, which you must certainly have for some very lengthy transition, then it must be conditional on people accepting the opportunities offered them AND offering them those opportunities. Simply telling them they shouldn't have had babies or that they should go get some job training and check their kids' homework is not going to make a dime's worth of difference. You need a personal connection to custom tailor the assistance each person gets while they transition out of dependency. It starts with recognizing their individual "sacred human worth," which government cannot possibly do.

Yes, the actual goal of this process is to "wean" everybody off of dependence, contributing to the society rather than subtracting from it. That means that as they progress, government benefits continue in a fashion that actually improves their economic situation.

And I have to ask, other than decrying the current system, or your straw man of my proposal, what is your solution? Mandatory sterilization? Work camps? Forcing all poor kids into foster homes?

Laurie said...

"and Liberals because the Baby Makers are cattle who go to the closest and easiest trough."

what does that even mean? it sounds ugly and hateful to me.

why you keep ignoring the fact that most low income families that receive got assistance have working parents. It seems to me the economy needs to provide more jobs with living wages.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, you are so close to right we almost agree. :-0
The economy doesn't "need" more jobs, it needs more people working. Employers do not need to pay a living wage, either, but rather need to pay whatever wage makes sense for their business. The silliest thing we can do is to pay people to not work or to demand employers pay out so much in wages (plus taxes and regulations) that they go out of business and everybody loses their job.

John said...

"If we are going to have government welfare at all, which you must certainly have for some very lengthy transition, then it must be conditional on people accepting the opportunities offered them AND offering them those opportunities."

Jerry,
This is what the Liberals believe we have today for the most part...

How again are you going to improve this?
What will you do with those people who do not comply? Their kids?
Who are the coaches / social workers?
Why do you think they will do better?
Will it require additional funding for awhile.

John said...

Laurie,
Are you sure about the "parents" part of this? I think it should read "parent".

"the fact that most low income families that receive got assistance have working parents"

You have been avoiding my question...

"So other than doubling down on the failed "War on Poverty" policies. What do you want to do to truly help these people. Not just feed them so they can pro-create like bunnies? "

jerrye92002 said...

"This is what the Liberals believe we have today for the most part..." Thank you for pointing out that the solution is simple. All we have to do is ignore the alternate universe that liberals have created in their own fanciful imaginations, and fashion an approach that takes into account the realities of economics and of human nature.

Your big concern seems to be those who "will not comply," and you seem willing to stay with the program we KNOW is failing miserably rather than try something that might be better, because of that concern. My approach would be to put in the best program we can think up, recognizing the aforementioned realities, and THEN deal with those very few marginal folks who are not helped.

Laurie said...

I don't think the war on poverty has failed. It helps to lessen the effects of poverty each and every day. If I was in charge of everything I think I might expand the EITC. Seems like it might be the best policy until we have an economy that produces a sufficient number of living wage jobs. Also, I don't think of a low income woman raising a child as someone procreating like a bunny.

John said...

Jerry,
The program is the way it is to protect the kids from homelessness, hunger, no healthcare, etc. I am still waiting to see how your plan does this?

Or even these simple tactical questions.
Who are the coaches / social workers?
Why do you think they will do better?
Will it require additional funding for awhile.

And as Laurie notes... Low academic /low skill Americans only earn $9 to $15 per hour. Which is pretty hard to survive on, especially if one is a single Parent.

John said...

Laurie,
You may be okay leaving the bunnies trapped in the cage feeding them pellets, but Jerry and I want more for them. See below.

Heritage War on Poverty

"War on Poverty was a success? Not really. When President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he wanted to give the poor a "hand up, not a hand out." He stated that his war would shrink welfare rolls and turn the poor from "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." Johnson's aim was to make poor families self-sufficient - able to rise above poverty through their own earnings without dependence on welfare.

The exact opposite happened. For a decade and a half before the War on Poverty began, self-sufficiency in American improved dramatically. But for the last 45 years, there has been no improvement at all. Many groups are less capable of self-support today than when Johnson's war started.

The culprit is, in part, the welfare system itself, which discourages work and penalizes marriage. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today the number is 41 percent. The collapse of marriage is the main cause of child poverty today.

The welfare state is self-perpetuating. By undermining the social norms necessary for self-reliance, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future. President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion over the next decade on welfare programs that will discourage work, penalize marriage and undermine self-sufficiency.

Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past we should return to Johnson's original goal. Johnson sought to help the poor help themselves. He aimed to free the poor from the need for government aid, rather than to increase their dependence. That's a vision worth recapturing."

Laurie said...

Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.

Characteristics of Minimum
Wage Workers, 2014

John said...

By the way, I agree that EITC and most programs that require citizens to learn, work, improve, be responsible Parent(s), etc are a step in the correct direction.

Remember my dream of having experts grade Parents, then using carrots / sticks to press them to learn, improve, etc. (ie social workers, doctors, teachers, etc)

Tax payers should be investing in these people so they become independent, self confident and productive citizens!!!

Not just feeding them pellets because they are poor, standing on American soil and making babies. That is not winning the war on poverty. It is just hiding and growing the problem.

John said...

From your source.

"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

The reality is that the vast majority of older people who are making only minimum wage are really lacking in skills, knowledge and/or work ethic. What would you be willing to pay them to work for you.

John said...

This is pretty interesting and discusses different aspects.

Fortune Min Wage Facts

Laurie said...

"Not just feeding them pellets" why do you insist on being so offensive and hateful when criticizing low income people?

If people had their income supplemented by the EITC they could continue to be paid minimum wage if that is what their skills warranted.

I am sitting in my kitchen this evening preparing for my day tomorrow, teaching the likely minimum wage workers of the future. I really disliked teaching high school spec ed where we had to write transition IEPs that were meant to help prepare students with disabilities for life as independent adults. I much prefer attempting to achieve the highest level of basic skills I can with each of my students while they are still in elementary school. I especially focus hard on reading, as reading opens the door to so much potential learning.

John said...

I only use pellets and rabbits because it seems to get your attention.

You seem capable of ignoring the concept that just giving irresponsible people food, housing, healthcare, etc with NO demands that they become responsible simply leads to them having babies who they teach to be like them. Then those kids grow up and often repeat the cycle. And then it happens again...

As for special ed kids, if they are severe they likely can be classified as having a disability. Please remember that I have no desire to stop assistance for the truly disabled.

But I do want the other 96% of the children in your school to grow up to be mature, intelligent, hard working, law abiding, independent and productive citizens who will help to the USA maximize it's success and their own.

Laurie said...

You seem capable of ignoring the concept that most people who receive govt asst are working at the best jobs they can find. that seems pretty responsible to me.

None of my students have severe disabilities and are not all that much different than the other 80% of students at my school that flunk the mca tests. With the turn that the country is taking the future looks pretty grim for many of the students at my school.

John said...

I will never understand your low expectations for these folks.

Do you think they can not learn or develop marketable skills?

Do you think they can not delay child bearing into their late twenties when they are in a solid marriage?

Do you think they must have more children than they can afford to care for?

Delaying parenthood, learning, working, getting married and then limiting the family size to 1 or 2 kids has worked for many people I know who struggled in school. What prevents your students from doing this?

I understand that their religion is probably different, but that does not justify them having more kids than they can afford to raise and relying on other citizens to pay their bills.

John said...

Just curious? What is the typical number of children in the families at your school?

This article discusses the topic.

"That’s one reason why women there have an average of six or seven children. Infant mortality rates are much lower in the US, but Somalis here still want big families."

Let's say a couple actually gets married and has 6 to 8 kids and modest jobs. Should the tax payers be responsible for subsidizing their chosen lifestyle? If we do it for a few generations, how many children will we be subsidizing? What behavior will we be promoting?

John said...

Now let's say that a single Mom has 3 kids, minimal skills, etc.

Is her "working at the best jobs they can find" truly good enough?

Do you want companies to pay her enough to raise 3 children on her own?

Is that realistic in anyway?

If tax payers subsidize the housing, food, medical, etc for her and the kids, what behaviors should she exhibit to be worthy of this continuing investment? What do you want to do if she gets pregnant by some other guy? Should she be required to name the Fathers?

Or do you just want to keep taking more from Peterina to give to Paulina?

Anonymous said...

I will never understand your low expectations for these folks.

Trump cost the people who trusted him billions of dollars. How low can our expectations go? Wouldn't our economy have been vastly better off if he had been a welfare mom, drawing food stamps?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Those rich greedy bankers lost, thousands of normal people got jobs and governments got a lot of additional property tax because of Trump's self serving activities. This seems like he should be your hero.

What again is the benefit to the country of giving money to a Baby Maker? What jobs are created, tax raised, etc?

jerrye92002 said...

John, now that is truly cold. You don't see children as a Gift from God, but as future taxpayers. Until you start to accept that these are real human beings with "sacred human worth" or at least nascent human dignity, you are NOT going to help them get to where both you AND THEY would like. Scolding them for situations over which they believe they have no control is going to get failure at best, and probably pushback to boot.

Laurie is right, that something like EITC that actually encourages work is the proper model, but we should go further. We used to have people called "social workers," aka "do-gooders" who actually worked with poor folks to get them up and out. We still do, they're called private charity volunteers. Beyond that, I still favor a "progressive" negative income tax and elimination of all other means-tested government programs. The tax would be progressive in that if you earned nothing, you got maybe 60% of poverty-level IN YOUR area. But as your wages grew, your "tax refund" would be more slowly decreased, hitting zero at maybe 150% of poverty level. It's all inexact, but it cuts out what I suspect is a fabulous amount of overhead (though we still pay for the social workers) but it does turn everybody into taxpayers with an incentive to earn more. Also, an incentive to get married, for the tax deduction and the cost savings.

fred flintstone said...

When leftists use their words (misogynist, xenophobe, racist & etc.) it is rarely in a situation that can be proven in context; they are just angry, hateful people. Conversely, when I, or anyone else calls someone a “freeloader” (or my preferred “moocher”), it can be demonstrably proven that they do in fact live their lives on the incomes of others.

Laurie opined...

“Many people who didn't vote for her were misled to believe her use of a private email server was scandalous. It wasn't.”

It was a crime of the worst sort. Forget about the thousands of emails that were classified “confidential”, the important, and criminally negligent mishandling of two that were classified “TS\SAP” would and have put others in prison.
I understand that people that have not served in the military might not understand what “TS\SAP” means. TS is “Top Secret” which means it has the ability to cause severe damage to national security, strategic or tactical military operations. “SAP”, or Special Access Program is a level above TS. People’s lives directly depend on this information. Examples of SAP information are where a special operations unit is working, what they are doing and who is on the team. If the enemy gets that information, someone is going to die.
Hillary Clinton treated our most secret information with less regard than a woman guards her recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

Jerry offered…
“Please explain how someone who can't find a job at all, let alone one that pays better than welfare, can afford to send their child to a private school that might educate them better?”

Please explain why someone who can't find a job at all, let alone one that pays better than welfare has kids. By every metric it is feckless, self-serving behavior of the sort that put them in the position of being unemployable in the first place.

jerrye92002 said...

Fred, is the obvious solution to simply kill the kid so the adult can find work? I prefer to play the ball from where it lies.

Anonymous said...

Those rich greedy bankers lost, thousands of normal people got jobs and governments got a lot of additional property tax because of Trump's self serving activities

Did the bankers lose their own money? Or the money entrusted to them by people just like you and me in the form of pension funds, savings accounts, and IRA's?

What again is the benefit to the country of giving money to a Baby Maker?

I don't really know what to say is response to that. I guess I will note that we all benefit from children and leave it at that. I am pro choice person, but I will tell you that the single strongest argument that pro lifers make against my position is that we need children.

--Hiram

fred flintstone said...

When we try a stance and it imparts a nasty hook into our swing, we play it where it lies, but we don't keep using that stance.

What we have is a group of players that use welfare to buy lessons from Carl the greens keeper (the Democrat party), which consistently leads to putting the ball (kids)in the sand trap (ignorance and poverty)...then they recommend Carl to all their friends.

There is nothing that can be done to help the majority of the kids that are living with a dysfunctional parent, today. But it is unforgivable for "us" as a society, to encourage those kids to perpetuate the cycle. And that is exactly what we have been doing for the past 40 years.

John said...

Jerry,
If you want to go with the "Gift from God" argument because 2 adults had casual unprotected sex, then let's raise taxes and ensure all these little Gifts are well fed, housed, and cared for. Even the illegal border crossing babies since they are humans also.

The reality is that we are a society that works best when everyone who can be is nurtured, cared for, educated, law abiding and pulls their own weight. And it is best for all of the people within the society also. Many Baby Makers are unprepared and/incapable to do this for their child(ren) and you want to look at them with rose colored glasses as there children are neglected.

By the way, having a successful country isn't just good for us, it also gives us the wealth and capability to help those little gifts in other countries.

fred flintstone said...

Hiram shared...

"I will tell you that the single strongest argument that pro lifers make against my position is that we need children."

That is a position I have not heard, Hiram. The consistent argument from pro-life groups is that abortion is a brutal, de-humanizing thing that drags society down.

Whether we need more children is debatable, but we certainly don't need more uneducated, undisciplined, sociopathic children.

jerrye92002 said...

I didn't know children were born undisciplined sociopaths. Uneducated, yes, but didn't government undertake that job? If (I presume some, not all) babies are born sociopaths, then we should simply identify them and kill them at birth.

fred flintstone said...

I didn't say they were born that way, Jerry. But it is clear they can, and are being raised to become sociopaths, by sociopaths.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/index.html

Anonymous said...


That is a position I have not heard, Hiram

It's quite common in the pro life programming I hear. People there often talk about the missing generations.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Fred, I like the way you think. Yes, we have a current problem, but we should stop adding to it year after year. The question is how. John agrees, apparently, but his whole solution seems to be to scold those who, for whatever reason, are the victims of their current circumstances and either demands of them that they change those circumstances, which I am reasonably certain they would if they could, or that government somehow force them to change their circumstances, which I find deplorable.

John said...

Facebook Live beating

Jerry,
You are amusing. Weren't you the one who just advocate shaming?

I have no desire to scold anyone. I just want them held accountable for the choices they made. And for being good Parents.

fred flintstone said...

Can I ask where you hear your pro-life programming, Hiram?

I am acquainted with several people that are active "pro-lifers", and I have never heard anyone say "we need more children". Do you travel in "pro-life" circles?

fred flintstone said...

John, it was me that advocated shaming. I guess I could aver shaming is holding people accountable, but I'm more concerned with making bad behavior unpopular.

jerrye92002 said...

"I have no desire to scold anyone. I just want them held accountable... "

I guess I'm too much a pragmatist to understand this magical thinking that says you can hold people "accountable" without harming them, UNLESS you scold them enough to make them ashamed, and that only works if they knowingly failed to choose the right path when it was offered to them. If it wasn't offered, which I claim prevails in too many cases of welfare dependency, then I don't see where you have any concern for helping these folks at all.

John said...

Pragmatist... You must be kidding...

Your magical thinking includes:
- Start withdrawing benefits and somehow the kids won't suffer
- Because some "super social workers" are going to use pixie dust to get these low academic / low skill / low motivation Baby Makers good paying jobs
- Somehow preaching abstinence will curb the number of accident babies.

How in the world do you consider this pragmatic?

jerrye92002 said...

I don't consider what you said pragmatic at all, but that has nothing to do with what I propose, which is:
--Do NOT withdraw benefits until they are no longer needed. In fact, as income is gained, decrease the benefits more slowly so that there is always an incentive to earn more. Withdraw benefits ONLY from those who steadfastly refuse to help themselves and, if they fail to provide for their children, well, we have laws for that.
--Social workers are super people, and they exist but are not being used sufficiently or well. They will do what they have always done, offer these folks some respect and help in recovering their human dignity, some useful skills, and help overcoming the obstacles. Jobs are out there, if we can get government out of the way. It's going to take a while, just as it took a long while to get where we are.
--preaching abstinence is unnecessary. Certain drugs of the sulfa family have been found highly effective in limiting pregnancy. They are sulfa-respect, sulfa-control, and sulfa-denial. Economic improvement also works wonders, and getting another parent to contribute to the family income is very useful, were it encouraged.

John said...

We don't disagree on the concepts... We disagree on the likelihood for success.

Well I guess we do disagree on the sulfa method being a viable successful option for preventing the conception of unplanned children.

jerrye92002 said...

The sulfa method does have the advantage of putting the responsibility where it belongs, along with the character/emotional tools to discharge that responsibility.

And if you don't like those, try the aspirin method.

John said...

Responsibility is pointless if there is no method of holding the person accountable / pay the consequence. And usually when these accidents happen, it is the innocent baby who bears the brunt of the negative consequences.

And somehow we will need to brain wash 10's of millions of non-Church going young people to embrace the Sulfa method... How do you envision this happening?

As you know, I am a fan of a more pro-active and effective method. The wonders of modern science...

jerrye92002 said...

So you are admitting that your proposal to "make them take responsibility" is going to harm the children? Were you not criticizing my proposal [incorrectly] for that very reason?

Who said that these matters of ethics were a matter of religion? Non-religious people exercise them all the time.

Fine. Let us make free sex truly free. How does that solve the problem of people being paid to not get an education, not work, do drugs and fornicate like Oryctolagus cuniculus? And frankly, forced sterilization is a far more certain genocidal tool.

jerrye92002 said...

And I believe you are misusing the definition of "responsible." The whole POINT of personal responsibility is that people hold THEMSELVES accountable, and accept the consequences of their decisions. Having government IMPOSE "accountability" on individuals is and always has been vastly less effective than getting individuals to accept personal responsibility. Who was it who said our Constitution "is suited for a moral people, and no other." You cannot have a free society in which every human decision is constrained by law.

John said...

Please remember that my draconian un-American plan was that if a parent on welfare got pregnant again... She would be given 2 choices for the good of the baby.
- first term abortion (non-preferred)
- give baby up for adoption (preferred)

She repeats the irresponsible behavior, maybe then forced tubal ligation would be appropriate. Remember our friend Angel Adams

Again, my goal is that babies that are born are raised by responsible capable Parents, not just irresponsible people who had poorly protected sex.

fred flintstone said...

Having government IMPOSE "accountability" on individuals is and always has been vastly less effective than getting individuals to accept personal responsibility.

Here's an idea; let's take the fun and profit out of mooching. Instead of handing out food stamps, why not give moochers vouchers redeemable only at government run food pantries that stock food staples only; milk, bread; rice and beans; cooking oil & etc. and require ID to pick up the groceries.

Random rug testing for section 8 housing.

Remove the need for cash assistance as much as possible: Contract with KMart to provide a basic line of uniform clothing; tokens for public transit; monthly energy allotment paid directly to utilities.

jerrye92002 said...

Or, how about this: It should be widely known that babies born with "no man in the house" will not get additional welfare. If the father is named (maybe must be), HE becomes responsible for the child support, or he can choose to get married in which case the welfare can continue. We quit penalizing two-parent families, married or not, on welfare. All the while, we've been helping Mom and/or Dad get (personalized) job training and placement, help with child care, medical assistance, and encouragement.

I do not understand the harsh treatment of these "unlucky kids" OR their parents.

jerrye92002 said...

Fred, I've thought about your proposal many times, and it does have some merit. Since the current welfare system is about "warehousing" the poor, we should just go ahead and make it efficient. We have government housing here, and food is provided, and clothing and other necessities will be provided to you. Like being in jail, basically, which we are already doing for (too) many poor folks for a lot more money.

The problem I have with it is that it completely discounts "sacred human worth" or "human dignity" and even the "economic potential" of these human beings. Our "welfare" system is currently closer to the former-- an ongoing and pointless expense-- than it is to something that would be an investment in that economic potential in anticipation of a return.

My real preference would be to turn the program into ALL cash but with the requirement they earn some sort of "matching" income, like the EITC. And then to have guidance available for low-cost meal-planning, school vouchers, finding child care, etc.

John said...

Fred,
My idea was public dormitories with common bathrooms, common TV rooms, common cafeteria and small sleeping rooms... Men and women in different buildings... Children likely with the women...

Society will happily keep you safe, fed and cared for... But if you want to behave like an immature person, society will treat you like such until you improve.

Just think we could have adult ed, counseling, childcare, etc...
Kind of like this...

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, that's the Catholic Charities Transitional Housing Program. The rules are no drugs, no booze, and you get all the help we can give you for four months, then you are out. And it is a private (religious, obviously) charity, doing exactly what (individually) needs to be done, and serving those willing to help themselves. If it is anything like other transitional programs I know, it is mostly battered women (and kids) who escaped.

So, why can't government do this sort of thing for everybody? The only problem would be those who (unlike the battered wife) lack the motivation or even the /idea/ of motivation, thanks to generational poverty. I'm going to estimate those folks at maybe 20%, but all but a tiny fraction of those could be turned around in, say, a 5-year limitation. At which point all the kids would be in school, at least.

John said...

I am not sure that 4 months and out is enough for many people who have spent ~18 years surrounded by bad influences and have little in the way of marketable knowledge or skills. The other problem is that many people would see pushing welfare recipients into this type of improvement program as demeaning and dehumanizing.

They seem to believe that people should be able to live as they wish, be housed in a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment, get free healthcare and get checks until they decide of their own accord to change their lifestyle. Somehow the tax payers owe it to them...

fred flintstone said...

Once again, I'm directed to consider the effects of the removal of shame from society.

Government has made several changes to welfare programs, not to make them more efficient, but to remove the shame of using them. We have replaced food stamps with debit cards which does increase efficiency and lower costs, but they have gone to great lengths to make them indistinguishable from bank cards. They should have the federal eagle printed on them with WELFARE CARD printed along the border in bright red letters.

Before you label me a mean spirited bastard, consider this.

I have 4 brothers and sisters; I am the eldest. When I was 9, my father decided we were cramping his style, and he left. In one week, we went from a solid middle class family to wards of the state.

My mother collected welfare for 5 years, until my brothers and I were old enough to watch our sisters while she went to work; it was the worst 5 years of my life. I remember the shame of handing over a stack of food stamps at the store, of going to Goodwill for "new" school clothes, of receiving "lunch tickets" at school. I still burn with shame whenever I think of it, and so do my siblings.

The result of all that shame is that all of us finished high school, and four of us went to college (my brothers and I joined the military to earn school tuition). We are all successful, none of us ever neglected our families...the thought of abandoning them is an unconscionable horror to us all.

Whenever I see "poor people" appear in news stories, complaining about how burdensome welfare rules are, or how unfair it is their kids don't get more subsidies, I realize just how lost they are, and know they and their kids are irredeemable. THAT is the wages of our "compassionate" welfare state.

jerrye92002 said...

You are largely correct. What I was pointing out is that most of those in "Transitional Housing" are those who are "short term" homeless, usually as a result of domestic abuse, and also those who have committed to getting out of their circumstances.

Applying this model to the current welfare population would require a great deal of adjustment. First of all, as you say, 4 months would not be nearly long enough to provide both an attitude adjustment AND marketable skills. I said 5 years should be plenty, but I am not sure even that will be enough for some very few. Those few, however, should never be allowed to prevent us from creating the right policy for all the rest. They will have the opportunity, just like everybody else, and if they refuse, well, maybe there are some unpleasant consequences, just as there are for not following any government law. Likewise, we shouldn't let liberals prevent us from doing the right thing for "the poor" just because THEY, from their lofty perches, think it "unfair" or somesuch. There is nothing fair about stealing my money and giving it to some no-good, ungrateful bum. If these people are valuable, as liberals claim and which conservatives generally believe they are, then HELP them! Don't just warehouse them. That is "government waste" on the grandest of scales.

jerrye92002 said...

Fred, thank you for that personal story. Now let me tell you another. Back during the debate on the '96 welfare reform bill, the Democrats and media (to be redundant) were all over finding supposed "victims" of the still-pending legislation. So NBC found this woman, mother of a little girl, supposedly "scared" that she would not be able to continue working and paying for child care and rent, if her benefits were "cut." Then they made a mistake, going to talk to this "poor woman's" mother. Turns out Grandma lives in a big house close by, all alone. The house is all paid for but Social Security is barely enough to pay the bills. She doesn't see her granddaughter enough, she says. So why on Earth is there a problem here? Daughter and granddaughter move in, help out with the bills, Grandma happily provides free child care and Mom can work! Liberals insist she should have her own place, that she get a "living wage" or not have to work at all (quite frankly, it is all just too phantasmagorical to make sense of). I believe most people still have a work ethic, but so long as government keeps bailing them out they continue to lose it, and hope with it. The welfare industry seems to be "too big to fail" and so it fails even as more money is thrown at it.

Anonymous said...

"Before you label me a mean spirited bastard, consider this."

I do notice there seems to be not one iota of gratitude in your story, considering that the American taxpayer helped to keep your family fed.

You seem more interested in shaming people than helping them.

Joel

John said...

Joel
Agreed. Something does seem funny here.

Though I agree with Fred that many current recipients rarely show gratitude either. For some reason they believe it is socially acceptable and that they are somehow earning the money / services...

By the way, I disagree with Fred that they are irredeemable... Maybe he was channeling Hillary. :-)

"Whenever I see "poor people" appear in news stories, complaining about how burdensome welfare rules are, or how unfair it is their kids don't get more subsidies, I realize just how lost they are, and know they and their kids are irredeemable. THAT is the wages of our "compassionate" welfare state."

John said...

From MP Center My last comment is stuck moderation... Surprise...

"Nirvana: It would be a wonderful world if :
- Consumers did not demand the best prices / quality /performance
- People spent less, saved more, invested more
- Qualified employees did not demand higher pay / benefits
- Investors did not demand the highest returns
- Businesses weren't constrained in between these 2 groups
- More citizens gave 10% of time / money to charity

However we do want to save money on our service and product purchases. And we do want to get a good return on the mutual funds we use to save for college funding, retirement, vacations, etc.

So yes we need some forced savings programs like SS, SS Disability, Medicare, Short term welfare, etc. My point is let's not get carried away, and let's strive to push the poor to become qualified, capable, etc. To win the War on Poverty we need to eliminate it, not just hide it." G2A

"I think you had a typo there, we all know the conservative way is to punish the poor until they're qualified (for what, I can never tell, pliant cheap labor maybe?), but I've yet to figure out how depriving the poor of resources, be they financial, material, or mental, allows anyone any hope to achieve anything at all, save for hopelessness and destitution." Matt

"I am not even sure where to go with this, so let's try.

Please remember that people struggle financially when they consistently SPEND as much or more than they EARN. This typically leads to poverty and/or debt for people of all income levels.

People on welfare, Medicaid, charity, etc are SPENDING more than they EARN. Since welfare, Medicaid, charity, etc are GIFTS from others made to help them through tough times. The goal during these times should be encourage, train and support the individuals so that they can EARN more and/or SPEND less. Which allows them to become independent and self confident, and frees up those GIFTS so they are available to help others.

An unfortunate reality is that while some people are highly motivated to learn, change, work, improve and strive for independence, there are others who do not. I understand since that is hard work and often they think they are right and the world is wrong.

Please share your thoughts on how to help nudge these change resistant happily dependent people out of the nest, so the GIFTS can used for others?" G2A

jerrye92002 said...

"Though I agree with Fred that many current recipients rarely show gratitude either. For some reason they believe it is socially acceptable and that they are somehow earning the money / services..."

WHERE is the mystery here??? Government tells these folks and labels these expenditures as "entitlements," do they not? What is there to be grateful for, if it is something to which I am entitled? Besides, to WHOM should I be grateful? There is no human handing me that cash or benefit, just some check in the mail or a cold government notice.

fred flintstone said...

Although Joel is correct in that I didn't explicitly express my gratitude, it is implied, I think, in my response to being a ward of the state. Two of my siblings and I are firmly in the 30% tax bracket; and all of us would be considered financially successful and well adjusted by most any measure. We pay, and pay dearly into the system that got us out of a jam.

My "Thanks" is in the form of a healthy check to the IRS every year ;-)

John, while there are certainly wards of the state out there that will take advantage of their gifts to pull themselves out of dependence, I just don't hear or see many. Even the leftist media, which has a stake in proving the welfare state is working, never seem to publish success stories; but yes, I know they are out there.

If someone had asked me my opinion during my 5 year tenure of state dependence I would have acknowledged my stomach was full (hamburger helper...mmmm), I had shelter and clothing thanks to the work of others. I'd have vowed that in return I'd do everything in my power to ensure neither I, nor anyone that depended on me would not only never be a burden again, we would be net contributors.

Anonymous said...

"My "Thanks" is in the form of a healthy check to the IRS every year."

I'm glad you clarified with the quotes, because it your "duty" as a citizen of this country.

Joel

John said...

I think all of you are correct.

We citizens of the USA should all be more grateful than we are. And yet since we pay taxes, somehow we seem to think we earned / are owed all this...

As one of my Professors reminded my self centered proud MBA class... The single biggest reason for your success is that you were born in America, or were allowed to immigrate here.

His rationale was very simple and logical... He knows a lot of smarter and more capable people who were born in countries where almost know one succeeds because of poverty, government restrictions, war, etc.

John said...

Some Useful Links

G2A Gratitude and Happiness
G2A Entitlement or Gratitude
G2A 96 or 4 My Choice
G2A Genetics, Environment or Luck
G2A Principles

fred flintstone said...

I'm glad you clarified with the quotes, because it your "duty" as a citizen of this country.

So we agree that the generations of moochers and wards of the state are not doing their duty to their country.

jerrye92002 said...

I have no duty except that which I accept. I can assume that duty based on some altruistic ideal, or because I am receiving some sort of reward in return. I have a duty to pay my mortgage because I freely entered into that contract and received the money to buy a house. I have a duty to be faithful to my spouse because I made a promise and because it follows my moral principles to do so. I do NOT have a "duty" to hand my money over to foolish bureaucrats who in turn hand it to worthless bums who do nothing in return, not even to help themselves out of their situation. That I can go to jail for not paying my taxes for this purpose indicates pretty strongly that it is not a duty that I would willingly accept. The LEAST government could do would be to see that my money is spent on those who would gratefully strive to make the best of it.

Anonymous said...

That's the typical Conservative response, jerry, so I'm not shocked that you've taken on the mantle of "I've got mine, too bad for you."

Joel

John said...

Jerry,
No one says a duty has to be taken on voluntarily.

Duty defined:
1. a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
2. a task or action that someone is required to perform

And since you do voluntarily choose to stay here... Paying taxes is a duty whether you like it or not. Of course I am guessing Costa Rica is nice this time of year.

John said...

Joel,
Since it highly likely Jerry gives much more to charity than you do... I think your comment is incorrect.

Please remember that supporting government wealth transfer is not the same thing as being a volunteer or giving to a charity of one's own volition.

Please remember that all of us want to help the less fortunate, we just have different ideas regarding how to best do this.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, you have taken on the typical liberal belief about conservatives, and of course you are completely wrong. Here are a couple of more accurate ways to put it.

I've got mine, why don't you get yours instead of stealing from me.
or
I've got mine; I can help you get yours if you like.

I will agree that I failed to distinguish adequately between duty and obligation. Duty, as I am using it, is voluntarily accepted and driven from within. Obligation, as in law, is forced upon you from outside. Caring for poor should be a duty, voluntarily accepted, or else it is theft.

John said...

It is not theft, slavery or any such silly thing.

You choose to live here. You choose to follow the country's laws.

No one is forcing you to be here.

jerrye92002 said...

I did NOT choose to live here. I was born here, and have never been offered a reasonable choice of living somewhere else that was better. Sort of like, I believe, a lot of poor people or "unlucky kids." They haven't been offered a reasonable choice that they believed was accessible to them.

And I don't choose to live under the country's laws, either, because there aren't reasonable choices about that, either. There are penalties for disobeying the law, and no penalty, possibly even a reward, for following them.

Let's take your definition of welfare. Money is taken from me, by threat of force, and goes into the pockets of someone I do not know. What about that transaction is different from an ordinary street mugging?

John said...

Jerry...
Of course you choose voluntarily to live here, and choose to follow the laws of our society. Just like I do. There are many places that we could go, but America is wonderful, even with it's laws and taxes.

As for the difference between mugging and tax/spend...

Laws
"1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution."

John said...

A woman co-worker once told me she HAD to work. Well I knew she was married with only 2 kids, so I reminded her in my gentlest way that her working was choice.

She had many options, she weighted them, she scored them and then she chose...

By the way, she quit awhile later and they bought B&B that she operated...

jerrye92002 said...

So, welfare is a LEGAL mugging? Is that really the distinction you want to make? Does something become wise or moral just by being written into law?

And we keep having the same debate. I do not believe I have a choice to live elsewhere, because all other choices have substantial negative downsides. I do not believe many welfare recipients (or parents of schoolkids) have any better choices available to them. You claim we have "choices," which is true, but if all choices are worse (IN OUR OPINION, which is all that counts) than what we already have, how is that indistinguishable from having no choices at all?

John said...

See New Post