Here Come Da JudgeFollow

Haha, snip-snip Varus. They be lookin' for joo!

Great idea. Did you know that in 1997 Aid For Dependent Families (AFDC) was scrapped for Temporary Assistance For Needy Families(TANF)?



edit = quoting nightmare!!

Edited, May 27th 2009 8:29pm by Elinda

Ummm, no. In California at least, about 8% of families that receive welfare benefits of any kind are considered "highly dependent", defined as 50% or more of total income derived from all welfare sources.

Granted, that says that 8% of families are sapping up a lot of benefits; but the same can be said for the top 8%, socioeconomically speaking.

Taking people's support away and letting them starve to death or turn to crime is not the solution to the problem.

Coincidence?

source

Edited, May 27th 2009 3:14pm by AshOnMyTomatoes

Am I imagining things, or is Virus calling for mandatory sterilization here?

Eugenics, much?

Ja.

Almost word for word what Gingrich is saying. And if you bothered to actually read what she said, and understand it, you'd know that you're just blowing a bunch of steam. But that aint happenin.

*********

She also said that it'd be wrong to assume that a white dude would make the wrong decisions because the SCotUS has been making good decisions for many years of White Guy-dom. Sounds racist to me.

But, whatever. Learn to live with the scary racist woman on the bench for the next couple decades 'cause that's where she's gonna be.

Johped,



LMAO...No liberal can top Vader.

I'll just pretend that Varus isn't arguing against big government by demanding yet more big government (and Eugenics programs to boot!). There is a correct argument here though, so let me make it:



That's a false dilemma. Varus just presents the really dumb counter here. The argument is that we should not be using the government to provide charity for the citizens. Other citizens should do that of their own choice. The reasoning is that individuals can choose who and how much they help others. Thus, those who are truly in need will get help, and those who are not will gently be nudged into becoming more self-sufficient.

Also, by making charity private and individually chosen by the people, it draws those in need into the community which is helping them. When it's run by the government, it actually tends to segregate people from eachother. Those receiving some sort of support are less likely to feel that they "owe" their fellow citizens and work hard to get back on their feet and are more likely to feel that their government "owes" them the benefits they are receiving. There's a subtle, but very relevant, psychological difference between receiving charity from a private source and from a government source which plays out IMO to the detriment of us all.

I disagree. Those in large cities, which you claim are the worse under a purely private charity type system have demonstrably worsened in virtually every statistical way over the last 50 years since we began implementing large scale and directly targeted government funded social programs.

I'm just curious when the Left will accept that the same argument that the Right has been making for that whole 50 years is not only valid, but is increasingly becoming undeniable. That by providing direct social benefits to the people, we increase the rate at which the people need those benefits and ultimately make the problems of poverty worse, not better.


It's one of those things that is so obvious that it's amazing to me how hard so many people work to insist that it can't be true. When conservatives predicted (on a whole list of social issues) that this would happen if we implemented X program or Y program, they were ignored and labeled as somehow hating poor people, or minorities, or women, or whatever. Yet, here we are, decades later, and pretty much exactly what the Conservatives predicted has happened. The groups which have been most targeted for social "help" have almost across the board lost ground. It's not just that those social programs haven't kept up with the problem. It's that the social programs make the problems worse. We're treating the symptoms, while making the illness worse.


Again. Obvious. But the obvious is often hard to accept for those who've invested a lot into the various social issues at hand.

Edited, May 27th 2009 7:00pm by gbaji

Are you saying there are proportionally more poor people, poorer poor people, more people dependent on welfare, or what?

Edit: Sorry, your obvious eludes me.

Edited, May 28th 2009 4:40am by Elinda