From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:07:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep14.183754.10627@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.180801.896@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>From <1992Sep11.101456.27348@sinix.UUCP>, by ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone):

>> > So, what is exactly do with we do with a 15 year GIRL that intentionally
>> > gets pregnant?  I have been misunderstood on this point before <the usual
>> > dimwits called me a Social Engineer/Nazi because I was for free access to
>> > abortion> - but the point remains, just what the fuck do you do with people
>> > that have children but can't afford to cloth/feed/adequately shelter them?
 
>> You help them clothe/feed/shelter them.  The more you do to help them
>> raise healthy, well educated children, the more you avoid the social
>> costs of their unhealthy, ignorant children.  You want to pay a little
>> now, or a lot later?

>With your idea, we are now paying a lot later.  You may help the first
>girl take care of children, but those children will have been raised 
>without a work ethic: their idea of normal living is welfare.  Consequently,
>you get generations of wefare recipents.

Do you actually have evidence of this "work ethic" claim, or this just
bullshit that's been put out for the last twelve years by Reagan/Bush?
You know, George Bush's dad was a millionaire.  George Bush didn't have
to work a day in his life if he didn't want to, and he could still live
comfortably.  And yet he did.  I guess the welfare he got as a kid
didn't destroy his work ethic.

(I won't mention that Democrats have been saying for years that workfare
would be better than welfare, but Republicans have opposed it as worse
than welfare on the grounds that that would teach them that government
would give them all jobs.)

>Add to this the fact that little Suzies girlfriends will see that she
>is being taken care of because she is a single mother and decide to 
>do the same thing so they can be taken care of.

>Besides, you don't pay a lot to bury the dead.  And if people died 
>when they couldn't feed themselves, we'd have a lot less unemployed
>people.  

And if we shot rich people, then we wouldn't have to hear them complain
that relatively low taxes are too high.  :)

I was going to ask if you had a better solution than the current system,
but I see you do.  Starve them to death.  Actually, since taxation seems
to be a fate worse than death, according to you, maybe we should just
make it illegal to be poor, and fine people for being poor.  Maybe that
would encourage them to work.  Or maybe torture would do a better job.

>> > What do you do with borderline idiots who just continue to have children,
>> > and consequently get increased welfare and child care payments.

>> To quote a statesman of our day, "Too hypothetical."  If there are
>> people actually doing this, they are a statistically insignificant

>*IF*!  Pull your head out, buddy.

You pull your head out.  Cite a study which shows any significant number
of people doing this.

>> number.  You probably have never actually known anyone on welfare --

>You definitely have not!

>> no one chooses that life.  Being on welfare means being continually
>> humiliated by people who don't care if you live or die, but who have
>> the power to decide if your kids eat next month.  You don't increase
>> your AFDC payments enough by having another kid enough to make it
>> worth your while.

>Being on welfare means you line up once a month to get a check -- then
>you spend the rest of the month doing whatever you please.

>And, apparently, those who are on welfare do think that the get enough
>extra $$ to make having more kids profitable.  (OK, so you have to 
>add AFDC to the other freebies -- no one portion is sufficient, but
>when you add them all up, they exceed the cost of tossing another
>child into the street.)

No, they don't.  "Apparently"?  Where do you GET these facts?  Reading
some David Duke, lately, or something, about undesirables?

In reality, most people on welfare are there for just 6 months.  

In reality, the average person on welfare has ~1.9 kids, LESS than the
average non-welfare family.

Furthermore, there was an article in the NYT the other day which
explained how welfare families got to decide during the winter whether
they wanted heat or food, because they couldn't afford both.  (They 
usually choose heat, because starvation takes longer to kill you.)

>> >  I am _not_ talking about a women or families that have recently hit
>> > upon hardtimes,
>> > I am talking about the chronically poor, and clueless. People that do not
>> > think about how they are going to feed these children, they just mindlessly
>> > continue to crank out these unfortunate welfare babies. 

>> You aren't talking about people you have any right to judge.

>I'm talking about *my*parents*: 5 kids, 3 on still on welfare.  

But WAIT!  Are you on welfare?  What happened?  Did your parents forget
to teach you how to be lazy?

For that matter, why did they stop at 5?  Why didn't they keep pouring
those kids out for those million dollar checks from Ed McMahon?

>> > Where do you draw the line between their freedoms and the tax payers's
>> > checkbooks?  Should they get welware if they continue to spew out children
>> > like a bunch of fornicating rabbits?

>> Who are you talking about???? Name three!!!  Even if there are some
>> people that fit your description, they constitute a tiny minority
>> of people on welfare.  You have millions of people living below the
>> poverty line.  You want to penalize all of them for the behavior of a
>> few?

>Three: My father, my brother K, my brother J, my sister.  Enough for ya?
>This bunch is just plain lazy and will only do what it takes to survive.

And I guess stupidity runs in the family, too.  (That was 4 people you
named, not 3.)  BTW, did you tell them that they should starve, because their 
lives aren't worth anything?

BTW, I live in an upper middle class suburb.  Most of THOSE kids were
lazy and did as little as possible, too.

>40% of those millions of "poor" own their own homes!  We have so many poor
>because the census bureau does not count entitlements and more and more 
>people are relying on those entitlements.

Well, I suppose they could sell their homes to eat, but then they'd be
homeless, or are you going to pretend there aren't any of those, either?

This is the new Statistic from the right wing -- really, they aren't
poor, because they own homes.  None of them own those $100K+ homes that
you see in the suburbs.  They own little homes in the countryside, where
a home often means little more than a few boards stuck together.  (Yes,
the countryside.  Most poor in this country are NOT inner-city.  They
are rural, especially in Appalachia.)

>I don't want to penalize anyone -- I want the gov't to stop penalizing
>me for earning a living.  This country was not founded on the principle
>that everybody should have a full belly, nor did it become great
>on that principle: it is, however, collapsing under the economic weight
>of this failed principle.

When the country was founded, everyone was middle class.  And the
country is not collapsing under any such thing.  The federal budget is
1/4 military, 1/4 interest on the Reagan debt, 1/4 SocSec+Medicare, 1/4
ALL OTHER DOMESTIC PROGRAMS. (numbers very approximate)

Social Security/Medicare are NOT welfare.

The country was founded on the principle that if you're too lazy to work
for yourself, you can just buy some slaves and put them to work.  That
was one of those great "principles" you're talking about.

>> >I know most of you are hot to hit that 'F' key. Go for it. You tree-huggers
>> >on the left, you bud-chugging, hairy backed redneck conservatives on the
>> >right, what is your solution?  Huh?  Well?

>> We need a government that sees our children as a valuable resource,
>> worth investing in.  Even children of welfare mothers.

>We need that like a hole in the head.  Go read up on the collapse of the
>Roman Empire.  Welfare leads to more people taking the handout.  Eventually,
>you get more takers than producers: then you face economic collapse.

But wait, I thought it was gay people that caused the collapse of the
Roman Empire.  No, wait, that's the other mindless conservative complaint.

>We are only another 20 years (at most) away from economic collapse if we
>don't stop the welfare system.

Really?  You have evidence for this?  Cite it.

>The Solution (tm) is to stop welfare and shrink the whole bureaucracy.
>This country was founded, and grew to greatness, on the principles of
>freedom and indvidual responsibility.  When being unemployed once again

Freedom, unless you were black, female, or asian.  Not to mention Jewish
or Catholic.

>means not eating, we will find ourselves in a nation of hard workers 
>on the track to greatness again.
                               
But I thought the Libertarian mantra was that private charities used to
do, and still would do, a better job than the government can to help the
needy.  Are you saying that it isn't true?

Anyway, there are many people for whom unemployment was NOT a choice.  They're
not unemployed because they're lazy, although obviously a few people
are.  They're unemployed because they CAN'T GET JOBS.

When this country was founded, anyone could get a job -- they could just
go over the Appalachians, find some unused land, clear it, and start
farming.  You could try that today, but all those people who have used
government coercion in an attempt to establish claims to that land
would get a little upset.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections