I have a question...

[Tommy Ruyle]

Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their @$$, doing drugs, while I work...

Can you imagine how much money the country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

 

[hillrancher]

Tommy Ruyle: You are preaching to the Quire here. Agree

 

[Lammie]

Around here if you have a drug conviction, you don't quilify for WIC for your kids. Seems to me that's punishing the kids, but then I guess you have to do something. It isn't the kid's fault, though.

 

[pdfangus]

Around here if you have a drug conviction, you don't quilify for WIC for your kids. Seems to me that's punishing the kids, but then I guess you have to do something. It isn't the kid's fault, though.

Lammie,

The part that bugs me is that I get the golden opportunity to pay for everyones promiscuity.

I hate to play the hard ass, (not really) but it is getting unreasonable. It is not the kids fault. It IS the fault of the parents who brought them into the world and take little responsibility for them. Because of their negligence, society has to provide the safety net that has become a hammock.

On the other hand if the aforementioned promiscuity leads to a pregnancy termination, then I, as a taxpayer, am expected to assist with that as well.

I don't want to start an abortion debate. My stance is that, it should be a private matter between those involved and their diety. As such they should not be looking to the taxpayer to be involved to support their decision, which is a result of other poor personal decisons. do what you will do .... and you pay for it. The abortion debate is not about abortion. It is about guvment money.

I am all for personal responsibility. I take responsibility for the decisions I make, and I think others should also take responsibility for the decisions they make.

If that decison is a child......then you are responsible for that child.

Back in the day if a fellow got a gal in a motherly way some one would get his attention, perhaps at the point of a gun. that is not all good but it sure as the devil made folks think about their actions.

now half of these children society is supporting, the daddy could not be identified out of a lineup.

Just like in so many other things guvment interference has only made the situation worse and lowered the community standards to the lowest common denominator.

If folks or a community want to assist undeprivileged folks that is grand, but for the guvment to take my money to do it on a weekly basis is legalized stealing.

 

[Lammie]

I just hate the thought of a kid going hungry for something they didn't do.

 

[Jogeephus]

Since it doesn't seem like the govmint sees it as clearly as you, maybe we should look at it from another angle. If you pay taxes the government will provide food stamps and credit cards to people who don't want to work. These people don't have anything to do all day except break in your house, do drugs, or make more babies who are going to continue the sequence. These drug heads take the foodstamps that was meant for their children and trade them for cash to buy drugs. When this is gone they will lose their minds one day and end up killing you, me or a police officer. So unless you want to be an accomplice to murder and starving a child you might want to rethink paying your taxes. Just a thought.

 

[dun]

Can you spell ACLU?

 

[john250]

A woman was murdered here a couple nights ago. Very likely a drug deal gone bad. She leaves 4 (!!!!) children. She was twenty something. That's what the paper says.

 

[Lammie]

You don't get to choose you parents. I wish everyone had the responsibility to keep their legs closed, but they don't. If everyone could choose their parents, well, they'd be living at Bill Gates' house, I am guessing. He's got the room and he's got the money. I don't know what the answer is, but hungry kids is not it. I see it every day at school.

 

[grannysoo]

The government has replaced the man of the house with the welfare check. Now, the family can not have a man unless they want the check to stop. Therefore, you have no husband, and only the man that comes in to shack up and create more children.

I agree with the urine test for all people that get any government assistance.

And as always, if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

 

[Lammie]

The government has replaced the man of the house with the welfare check. Now, the family can not have a man unless they want the check to stop. Therefore, you have no husband, and only the man that comes in to shack up and create more children.

I agree with the urine test for all people that get any government assistance.

And as always, if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

When I was a single parent, for six years, I never once even considered applying for assistance. I just took an extra job. My kids are fine. One's in college and the other is an A student in junior high. I know there was more than one time I fed the kids and ate what they left over. I can't abide a bad parent. I would much rather go hungry and see my kids eat. I guess other folks don't feel that way.

 

[john250]

Even if govt buys the food, someone has to be responsible enough to get it to the table.

 

[Alice]

There's no good answer to this. Responsibility can't be legislated. Like Lammie says, children cannot be allowed to starve because their parents are irresponsible. Third World countries have children dying daily in the streets because of starvation and lack of health care for them, and I find that morally reprehensible, as do the majority of the people in the United States.

It's all well and good to say if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em, and I definitely understand that sentiment. However, the children are here, and they must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. Personally, I would like to see all children that are born to irresponsible, immoral, parents taken immediately and placed where they will be raised properly. I would also like to see something along the lines of two strikes you're out...in other words, it wouldn't bother me a bit to take an irresponsible man/boy who's fathered a whole gaggle of kids by a whole gaggle of girlfriends and neuter him. Same with the women/girls who can't seem to understand what it takes to have kids. Now, Dun, there's a case for ACLU...

Alice

 

[kerley]

I agree with you but there is still no good answer. Tom

 

[curtis]

There's no good answer to this. Responsibility can't be legislated. Like Lammie says, children cannot be allowed to starve because their parents are irresponsible. Third World countries have children dying daily in the streets because of starvation and lack of health care for them, and I find that morally reprehensible, as do the majority of the people in the United States.

It's all well and good to say if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em, and I definitely understand that sentiment. However, the children are here, and they must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. Personally, I would like to see all children that are born to irresponsible, immoral, parents taken immediately and placed where they will be raised properly. I would also like to see something along the lines of two strikes you're out...in other words, it wouldn't bother me a bit to take an irresponsible man/boy who's fathered a whole gaggle of kids by a whole gaggle of girlfriends and neuter him. Same with the women/girls who can't seem to understand what it takes to have kids. Now, Dun, there's a case for ACLU...

Alice

Alice, for once in a long time i agree with you 100%. A sharp knife would solve a lot of problems.

 

[john250]

would also like to see something along the lines of two strikes you're out...in other words, it wouldn't bother me a bit to take an irresponsible man/boy who's fathered a whole gaggle of kids by a whole gaggle of girlfriends and neuter him. Same with the women/girls who can't seem to understand what it takes to have kids. Now, Dun, there's a case for ACLU...

Alice

I would love to see a discussion of sterilization for these irresponsible parents, but I don't see it happening. I knew a girl who had 3 kids. She was mentally challenged herself, probably from fetal alcohol. She was attractive, since she always had govt housing and 4 SSI checks--so the boys flocked to her. Very sad case. Sadder still, we were and I'm sure still are paying for it. Add on special ed for her kids, since they were all special. Hard to say what that one woman cost us taxpayers, but it is easily hundreds of thousands, if not millions. For one woman.
BTW, I think the fathers of her kids should just be shot, if we knew who they were. But, danged ACLU again.
Multiply her by all the similar situations and it gets to be a real problem.