From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.180801.896@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
> From article <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.

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.  

> > 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.

> 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.)

> >  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.  

> > 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.

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.

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.

> > 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.

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

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
means not eating, we will find ourselves in a nation of hard workers 
on the track to greatness again.
                                
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4622 alt.politics.clinton:4767 alt.politics.elections:12780