Oh, Mitt....

[thom]

And for the kids of these fuck ups?  Tough shit?  Sorry you have no food, health care, etc. because your parents are dipshits?

You also can't base policy on the fact that some people can't raise their children.  This is true always and everywhere.  Giving people cash instead of enrolling them in programs probably benefits the majority of poor children but is extremely detrimental to the minority of children who's parents are incapable of raising them.  I suppose you'd just keep doing what we often do now - take the kids away.

start pontificating about how people are poor because they're "stupid,"

Holy Christ, I was making exactly the opposite point that you think I was making.  Our entire welfare policy now is based on the idea that poor people are stupid.  I disagree with that approach.

[llivermore]

So the answer is to treat everyone like an addict

Right

If they're not addicted to heroin, they're probably addicted to something else.  Like eating.  Or living in a house.  Who knows what these crazy poor people will come up with next?

[Doctor Worm]

If they're not addicted to heroin, they're probably addicted to something else.  Like eating.  Or living in a house.  Who knows what these crazy poor people will come up with next?

You're saying that people would use money to pay for the things they need?

Get the fuck out

You also can't base policy on the fact that some people can't raise their children.  This is true always and everywhere.  Giving people cash instead of enrolling them in programs probably benefits the majority of poor children but is extremely detrimental to the minority of children who's parents are incapable of raising them.  I suppose you'd just keep doing what we often do now - take the kids away.

Holy Christ, I was making exactly the opposite point that you think I was making.  Our entire welfare policy now is based on the idea that poor people are stupid.  I disagree with that approach.

This is the incredibly rare occasion that I'm actually going to agree with you

[Ellie II]

handing people cash as a safety net would literally cause thousands of people to die. it is probably the single dumbest idea I have ever heard.

[llivermore]

handing people cash as a safety net would literally cause thousands of people to die. it is probably the single dumbest idea I have ever heard.

Ellie is completely and indubitably correct.  Why not issue loaded pistols to children, too?  Where does it say in the Constitution that the right to bear arms is limited to adults?

[Ellie II]

You also can't base policy on the fact that some people can't raise their children.

Yes you can. You are out of your gourd.

[Doctor Worm]

Ellie is completely and indubitably correct.  Why not issue loaded pistols to children, too?  Where does it say in the Constitution that the right to bear arms is limited to adults?

Yes because providing money to adults is the same as handing a child a handgun

For a reasonably intelligent dude you say some stupid bullshit

[llivermore]

Yes because providing money to adults is the same as handing a child a handgun

For a reasonably intelligent dude you say some stupid bullshit

"Adults" is a completely relative term, and, in this particular context, a meaningless one.  There are 12 year olds who could do a better and more responsible job with handling money (or loaded pistols) than some 40 year olds.  The trouble with a one-size-fits-all ideology is that it ends up not fitting anything particularly well, and, oh yes, that when you try to slot everything into your particular view of "how things should be," lots of people end up living miserable lives and/or dying before certain ideologues are prepared to admit that, "Well, maybe my idea could use a little tweaking..."

[Mrs. Alive]

Yes you can. You are out of your gourd.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with legilation that kprotects kids from their parents' stupidity.

[blackandgold]

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with legilation that kprotects kids from their parents' stupidity.

Honest question:
What's better for society as a whole? A legal structure where terrible parents are forced to support their kids based on how welfare money can be spent? Or identifying terrible parents early on and having the state take their kids away?
It's an interesting question that Thom raises.

My general opinion of humanity is that most of us do what we have to for our own happiness. For many people that means social success. For others, like me, that means being able to live a comfortable life. And for others that means the next check/high/rent payment. I tend to believe more than Thom that most poor people fall into the 3rd category. But I also probably spend more time with lower classes than him. I know it's not 100% true. I grew up in a household with three kids and less than $25,000/yr where we went to the doctor, the dentist, and had more than enough food without the government. But my parents are both smart people who chose to live a certain religious lifestyle. However, most people will take whatever the government allows them to have.

[blackandgold]

But I also probably spend more time with lower classes than him.

For instance, I was recently told by my boss that I'm one of three people where I work that has a bank account. This is because everyone else can't have one and has to cash their checks at Wal Mart.

[adam background]

Except its not an either/or situation.