Low taxes are a subsidy?

[Deacon]

[quote="mikehendo";p="715471"]So basically, you want to screw over the people who need medical care? ... There is no reason that the poor shouldnt be the breeding ground of the next major plague.[/quote]
Actually, if I understood correctly, he wants people to remember that it's your responsibility to provide medical care for yourself, not mine. And the plague? The hell are you talking about? If someone's rotting away, they can be taken to an emergency room, and such a widespread problem has a completely different concept than taking money from productive members of society to give away for free to others who qualify by specifically being, well, worthless.

Should the gov't be giving people money for doing nothing? probably not.. Is it the government's resposibility to ensure that its people are not starving in the streets? Hell yeah. There is no reason that a developed country should have people starving.

No, it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's responsibility. If you want to make the government poke its nose into it, then its role would be to make sure that businesses are being run on the up-and-up and therefore that opportunities exist for its citizens to take advantage of if they so desire. There is a reason that a developed country should have people starving: people. People are stupid, lazy, have fucked up priorities, etc. The government's role is not to be a giant, costly enabler. Your hyperbole and rhetoric about people "starving in the streets" is telling.

National Flood insurance - if you're stupid enough to build a house on a beach, it shouldn't be taxpayers footing the bill when it washes away.

What about an entire city. Sure, Katrina would have happened eventually, had it not happened when it did..

Nope, HTRN is right on this one. Katrina was not Washington's fault, nor was it my fault. It was the fault of the citizens of New Orleans who opted to not upgrade their levees even though people had been warning them about it for 50 years. If it did not happen when it did, then a) it would've happened later or b) they would've eventually decided, like other nearby parishes had, that it was worth doing.

Farm Subsidy's - We shouldn't be paying farmers to let fields sit idle.

Lets say "screw the family farm" all together.

You seem to be confused. Farm subsidies go mostly to the big-production corporate farms, paying them to keep prices artificially high by not farming. Otherwise, why wouldn't everyone be a small family farmer, sitting around doing nothing while collecting checks funded by Other People's Money to do nothing?

It is quite a bit more complicated than that. You do realize that foriegn aid is also recieved, right? FYI: The US is recieved the [url=http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publica ... 01-g02.xls]second largest amount of FDI according to the OECD..

Bullshit. Celine Dion counts the Red Cross in her list of charitable organizations to which she donates, so the US receives significant sums of cash from other governments like we do when we pour billions into the State Department for splashing around Latin America? And then you want to suggest that the US being an attractive place to invest is even part of the same general region of discussion at all? By the way, your USA Today link is just plain terrible. Seriously. It's like a liberal media circle-jerk quoting Bin Landen's peers in Pakistani newspaper editorials and glossing over the details of the situation to harp on continually perpetuated misrepresentations of not only the whole situation, but of the motivations of those involved and the reactions from those who only get the half-truths and haphazard reporting they find on CNN.

Although, I suppose that since you are all for Americans starving, why not have millions of starving Africans and Asians as well..

That's a completely different topic, though you might want to create a thread asking for politically incorrect (aka objective) thoughts on a backward, corrupt, disease-ridden people who are living on land that can't sustain them naturally being artificially sustained in a state of overpopulation and poverty by incredibly wealthy people (entertainers) demanding that people who work for a modest living sacrifice a bunch of cash to throw at the problem abroad without making any serious effort to analyze the problem or make any argument other than pure appeals to emotion.

Most of what the DoT pays for now are interstate roads.. The rest goes towards the funding of ports, railways, and airports. All of which are beneficial to the nation economy.. Why on earth would they want to help ensure that this country has a good economy..

Please provide PDF warnings, and ESPECIALLY Excel file warnings. Regardless, you seem to have once again missed the point. It's great that they do their job. The problem is that they dictate state policy by threatening to not do their job and to withhold resources if the state does not conform to their whims. If it's anyone but the government doing that, it's called extortion, or maybe more accurately racketeering.

Basically, I want a complete end of direct transfer of funds to individuals, corporations, and states. In other words, an end to government bribery to get what they want.

Why on earth would a corporation want to fun the armed forces? Why would most corporations want to ensure that they poor arent starving in the streets? Whats in it for them?

While I'm not completely in step with HTRN here, I think it's fairly obvious that you can insert the word "unearned" in there between "of" and "funds" in the first sentence.

While we are at it, lets make it damned near impossible to ever push through a tax ever again.

Out of curiosity, why would that be so bad? You'd basically have to reevaluate how we look at taxation and spending, come to a consensus, pass it, and leave it alone until something changes enough to warrant it. That will never happen, of course, but it would be a good thing.

Lets abolish all taxes and bitch and moan that services arent around anymore.

You're drawing a false dichotomy between excessive taxation with questionable spending and...well, nothing at all. Why would you do that if you intend for this to be a serious discussion? Why not demand that the government operate in a more efficient manner, basically like a business whose customers are its citizens? Think about that. How awesome would that be?

Lets charge everyone through the nose for projects that ony cost them a fraction of a cent now. Brilliant idea there..

By the way, this is just a continuation of your interminable and somewhat exhausting hyperbole, but in this line specifically you're pointing to your diehard belief in a free lunch. Whether it works out better for someone to do things a different way requires evaluation and analysis, not flippant, ridiculous rhetoric. The sheer lack of insight here burns...

By the way, an ellipsis contains THREE DOTS. NOT TWO. Ugh. It's such a small thing, and you get it wrong so consistently and with such frequency that it becomes truly annoying and does not, by any means, reflect positively on your points.

[mikehendo]

[quote="Deacon";p="715558"][quote="mikehendo";p="715471"]So basically, you want to screw over the people who need medical care? ... There is no reason that the poor shouldnt be the breeding ground of the next major plague.[/quote]
Actually, if I understood correctly, he wants people to remember that it's your responsibility to provide medical care for yourself, not mine. And the plague? The hell are you talking about? If someone's rotting away, they can be taken to an emergency room, and such a widespread problem has a completely different concept than taking money from productive members of society to give away for free to others who qualify by specifically being, well, worthless.[/quote]Why wait till it becomes plague like.. Why wait till it goes to such an extreme.

Should the gov't be giving people money for doing nothing? probably not.. Is it the government's resposibility to ensure that its people are not starving in the streets? Hell yeah. There is no reason that a developed country should have people starving.

No, it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's responsibility. If you want to make the government poke its nose into it, then its role would be to make sure that businesses are being run on the up-and-up and therefore that opportunities exist for its citizens to take advantage of if they so desire. There is a reason that a developed country should have people starving: people. People are stupid, lazy, have fucked up priorities, etc.

So, the reason why people should be starving is because they are stupid and lazy?

National Flood insurance - if you're stupid enough to build a house on a beach, it shouldn't be taxpayers footing the bill when it washes away.

What about an entire city. Sure, Katrina would have happened eventually, had it not happened when it did..

I love how you set that up as though we disagree.. You repeated the first half of my point and failed to address the rest of it
Nope, HTRN is right on this one. Katrina was not Washington's fault, nor was it my fault. It was the fault of the citizens of New Orleans who opted to not upgrade their levees even though people had been warning them about it for 50 years. If it did not happen when it did, then a) it would've happened later or b) they would've eventually decided, like other nearby parishes had, that it was worth doing.

I love how you set that up as though we disagree.. You repeated the first half of my point and failed to address the rest of it. Ya know.. about flooding in places that arent usually thought of as flood zones..

Farm Subsidy's - We shouldn't be paying farmers to let fields sit idle.

Lets say "screw the family farm" all together.

You seem to be confused. Farm subsidies go mostly to the big-production corporate farms, paying them to keep prices artificially high by not farming. Otherwise, why wouldn't everyone be a small family farmer, sitting around doing nothing while collecting checks funded by Other People's Money to do nothing?

While agri-business does recieve subsidies, so do family farmers. I do agree that agri-business should be cut off of all subsidies. However, if anything, more money should go to family farms.

It is quite a bit more complicated than that. You do realize that foriegn aid is also recieved, right? FYI: The US is recieved the [url=http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publica ... 01-g02.xls]second largest amount of FDI according to the OECD..

Bullshit. Celine Dion counts the Red Cross in her list of charitable organizations to which she donates, so the US receives significant sums of cash from other governments like we do when we pour billions into the State Department for splashing around Latin America? And then you want to suggest that the US being an attractive place to invest is even part of the same general region of discussion at all? By the way, your USA Today link is just plain terrible. Seriously. It's like a liberal media circle-jerk quoting Bin Landen's peers in Pakistani newspaper editorials and glossing over the details of the situation to harp on continually perpetuated misrepresentations of not only the whole situation, but of the motivations of those involved and the reactions from those who only get the half-truths and haphazard reporting they find on CNN.

Umm.. so, since you didnt like the one article, you do not believe that any other country provides aid to the US? I try to give you a popular source since you wouldnt be able to view any of the academic articles that i could have cited.. oh well..

Although, I suppose that since you are all for Americans starving, why not have millions of starving Africans and Asians as well..

That's a completely different topic, though you might want to create a thread asking for politically incorrect (aka objective) thoughts on a backward, corrupt, disease-ridden people who are living on land that can't sustain them naturally being artificially sustained in a state of overpopulation and poverty by incredibly wealthy people (entertainers) demanding that people who work for a modest living sacrifice a bunch of cash to throw at the problem abroad without making any serious effort to analyze the problem or make any argument other than pure appeals to emotion.

Oh yes, the extreme levels of poverty in Africa would have nothing do with the way that the people on that continent were treated.. Nothing at all..

Most of what the DoT pays for now are interstate roads.. The rest goes towards the funding of ports, railways, and airports. All of which are beneficial to the nation economy.. Why on earth would they want to help ensure that this country has a good economy..

Please provide PDF warnings, and ESPECIALLY Excel file warnings. Regardless, you seem to have once again missed the point. It's great that they do their job. The problem is that they dictate state policy by threatening to not do their job and to withhold resources if the state does not conform to their whims. If it's anyone but the government doing that, it's called extortion, or maybe more accurately racketeering.

I believe HTRN's point was that they spend tons of money on local projects.. Which IS NOT the case..

Basically, I want a complete end of direct transfer of funds to individuals, corporations, and states. In other words, an end to government bribery to get what they want.

Why on earth would a corporation want to fun the armed forces? Why would most corporations want to ensure that they poor arent starving in the streets? Whats in it for them?

While I'm not completely in step with HTRN here, I think it's fairly obvious that you can insert the word "unearned" in there between "of" and "funds" in the first sentence.

So.. answer the second half.. What is going to make a corporation want to feed the poor?

While we are at it, lets make it damned near impossible to ever push through a tax ever again.

Out of curiosity, why would that be so bad? You'd basically have to reevaluate how we look at taxation and spending, come to a consensus, pass it, and leave it alone until something changes enough to warrant it. That will never happen, of course, but it would be a good thing.

Why would that be a problem? because there are always goign to be politicians who are so anti-tax they would never agree to any increases. Look at Bush for example.. Spending money he doesnt have and wanting to cut taxes..

Lets abolish all taxes and bitch and moan that services arent around anymore.

You're drawing a false dichotomy between excessive taxation with questionable spending and...well, nothing at all. Why would you do that if you intend for this to be a serious discussion? Why not demand that the government operate in a more efficient manner, basically like a business whose customers are its citizens? Think about that. How awesome would that be?

That comment was in regards to HTRN's request for all money to be transfered back to individuals..

Lets charge everyone through the nose for projects that ony cost them a fraction of a cent now. Brilliant idea there..

By the way, this is just a continuation of your interminable and somewhat exhausting hyperbole, but in this line specifically you're pointing to your diehard belief in a free lunch. Whether it works out better for someone to do things a different way requires evaluation and analysis, not flippant, ridiculous rhetoric. The sheer lack of insight here burns...

There is no such thing as a free lunch, Deac..

By the way, an ellipsis contains THREE DOTS. NOT TWO. Ugh. It's such a small thing, and you get it wrong so consistently and with such frequency that it becomes truly annoying and does not, by any means, reflect positively on your points.

I am allowed to do it however I want.. and i always to it with TWO DOTS .. be glad that i am not ee cummings, who never used any punctuation what so ever..

[Deacon]

[quote="mikehendo";p="715593"]So, the reason why people should be starving is because they are stupid and lazy?[/quote]
If someone is stupid and lazy and has fucked up priorities, I'm not completely sure that the responsibility to work to feed, clothe, nurse, and house them is yours or mine. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's still theirs. If someone is none of those things, then they're going to find an opportunity. And if they're especially not one of those things, they're going to make an opportunity. I'm not sure exactly when it was that punishing those who do choose to excel and rewarding those who do not because the right thing to do.

I love how you set that up as though we disagree.. You repeated the first half of my point and failed to address the rest of it. Ya know.. about flooding in places that arent usually thought of as flood zones..

I must've misread. I thought you were suggesting that the flooding of New Orleans was a good, deserving example. As to the rest of it, I certainly don't understand. How does an area that's not a flood zone flood so badly that the national government has to get involved? Besides some dude building an Ark, that is...

While agri-business does recieve subsidies, so do family farmers. I do agree that agri-business should be cut off of all subsidies. However, if anything, more money should go to family farms.

And what happens when corporate agriculture kicks the rest of their capacity into gear? What happens to those family farms that can't compete? And why should they be artificially propped up by funds taken by force from the people who are themselves working just to put their product on the table... Because Norman Rockwell said so? Because it sounds neat? Perhaps it's time to reevaluate what you take for granted.

Umm.. so, since you didnt like the one article, you do not believe that any other country provides aid to the US? I try to give you a popular source since you wouldnt be able to view any of the academic articles that i could have cited.. oh well..

The hell are you talking about? You didn't provide any information to back up your claim. There are token, diplomatic gestures made by other countries every once in a while, but the other 364 days of the year you and they are both talking about we're just not giving enough, how we're all so rich and live such opulent, greedy lives. Nobody chided any other country for not offering aid. The problem is the cash we hand out, the way it's managed, and how much of it disappears into the bureaucracy and ends up lining the wrong people's pockets. It goes to politically correct targets and programs instead of going where it can be effective. And they spit in our faces as they take the cash while armchair elitist liberals sit in their high-backed thrones in England and hold their Amnesty International meetings to decry the United States of America as the single worst human rights offender in the world.

Oh yes, the extreme levels of poverty in Africa would have nothing do with the way that the people on that continent were treated.. Nothing at all..

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You make flippant statements that are apparently attempts at sarcasm, basically pulling a Fuggle in acting like you've made a point when you haven't actually said anything and only made vague implications that could be interpreted many ways, pretty much all of which are wrong, both conceptually and factually. And, as if that weren't enough, you failed utterly to address any of the points that were actually made.

I believe HTRN's point was that they spend tons of money on local projects.. Which IS NOT the case..

Perhaps you should go back and read it again, because that's not what I understood. Regardless, I am making a point. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

So.. answer the second half.. What is going to make a corporation want to feed the poor?

Why would I answer a rather asinine question that's both loaded and makes all sorts of assumptions, such that it's nearly impossible to answer? Me, I'm not sure how humanity survived without a central government to prop up "the poor." That we lost our tails and came down out of the trees is pretty astounding, considering.

That comment was in regards to HTRN's request for all money to be transfered back to individuals..

Really? I don't recall such a request. In case you forgot what exactly you quoted above your response, I'll remind you:

All new tax schemes should have to pass by a supermajority of Congress.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, Deac..

So...what, then?

I am allowed to do it however I want..

So is every petulant, spoiled child in America, and they defend their behavior with right about the same stellar level of grace, eloquence, humility, and intelligence. Congratulations on all your excellence.


And in the end, as it turns out, a country's government not riding its citizens into the ground under the weight of an undue tax burden is not a subsidy, not literally, and not figuratively.

[Captain Pink]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="715358"]Why is it illegal to open a bank account in Switzerland if you don't live there? Is it illegal according to Swiss law, or EU law?[/quote]

Opening a bank account there is not illegal. but you have to pay taxes on it like loan taxes aso. Many of those who have such an account do smuggle the money there to run the taxes. That is illegal.

Farm Subsidy's - We shouldn't be paying farmers to let fields sit idle.

I can go with that. Here in the EU, this issue makes me choke. The EU pays billions of € to subsize farming and so creating goods that nobody needs. For this surplus, the EU pays even more € to throw them away properly. Stupid! If you would use the money to help farmers build biogas-generators, you could put this shit to an end and give the farmers into producers of a crisis-save product: energy.

On social helping:
I just heared about a good alternative vs. welfare: basis loan. It works the following way:
you get paid a sum like 400€ a month by the government. Just enough to live, but not more. You can afford a small falt, food, gas, water, telephon and a small TV. But no car, holiday trips, big night outs aso. Everybody gets it, from the day of birth to the day you die, no matter if you work or not or how much money you have/earn. This would be financed by taxes like consume taxes. The real plus for this is, that you can go without as much management of welfare than you need when you try to give only to those who are unemployed or disabled, sick aso. everybody can decide If he wants to live on the basis (which simple living) or wants to have some extra money to go on holiday or buy a car. I like the idea. It s social but not creating a social net where the lazy ones can rest on a level that goes above the basical needs. and most of all it frees the state from overblown burocracy. In Germany, welfare mangement costs more than the actual welfare.
Same goes for the health insurance. In Germany, we have a quite more social healthinsurance system than you have in the US(not this: Can you pay? No? Oh sorry, better luck next time.). The problem is, that we did it too social. Many doctors bought expensive machines and do use them when there is no need for it an let the public pay for it. And many medicaments are given to patients while they could use cheaper genericas. My thought about this: Stop this and install a two layerd health insurance system. the first layer is a health insurance of the government. It has extremly low costs, but also only basic service. You won´t die, but no extras. Every one is in it and nobody can be thrown out.
For the extras, you go to private insurance companies and take an insurance from them. You get the extras, but you pay for them extra. So everyone can judge how much money he/she wants to spend on it.

@Deacon: I become aware of the fact that you are quite egocentred. I am glad that you do not need any help from wellfare, because you ain´t disabled (mentaly or physicaly) and you have a source of money that makes you able to afford a life worth living. But you should tkae a look over the rim of your dish and see that there are people who are not so lucky. do you really want them to starve and die? What if you become involved in an accident tomorow that will leave you paralized from the chin down to your toes? You would need help. I think then you will realize why you can be glad that there is a government that helps you.

[Deacon]

Captain Pink, I'll be glad I have family to rely on as well, should such an insanely rare thing ever happen. I'm sure Stephen Hawking would have a word with you on the matter. And no, this isn't about luck. What's the matter with you? Haven't you been paying attention? It's about taking personal responsibility to make the most of the opportunities you find and the ones you yourself create. Sure, "luck" may influence which opportunities those may be, but little else. It always bothers me when someone works their ass off and finally becomes successful and other people walk by, kicking a pebble with their toe, saying, "Pffft...Lucky."

[minsx]

For the record, I agree with Deacon.

Not that it will spare me his condescending wrath anyhow, but oh well, I've learned to expect that.

In addition, I must say that I disagree with captain pink's two-tiered system. The best USA comparison to a two-tiered system like those you've described is the Social Security, which, after several decades of implementation, does not show the reasonable social outcome that you're describing.

[Bigity]

[quote="Captain Pink";p="715352"]Moment plz. There is one thing you have to realise over this disagreement between the EU and Switzerland. Switzerland has a different idea behind the taxes. For money at the bank, taxes are low as can be. But if you buy something there, or recive electrical energy aso, prices are quite high, and if you want to see a doctor, bring in the money (but this is not different in US, is it?). The real problem is, taht many people from the EU live in the EU, earn their money there, take the benefits of the social systems there and then take their money and bring it to a bank in Switzerland. So they do not pay any taxes for it in the EU for money they earned there. If you have a residence in switzerland, that is all legal. But if you do not, it is illegal. The problem is, Switzerland does not tell the EU who brings the money there illegal. tahts why the EU is pissed.[/quote]

I don't think it is illegal. Didn't Bono just move his company out of Ireland (to Switzerland, IIRC?) because he got less taxes there?

[adciv]

Bigity, I think what he is saying is illegal is Income Tax Evasion.

The real problem is, taht many people from the EU live in the EU, earn their money there, take the benefits of the social systems there and then take their money and bring it to a bank in Switzerland. So they do not pay any taxes for it in the EU for money they earned there.

Which makes me wonder why the EU's component countries do not have a system like the US IRS does where the companies are required to report how much each employee earns.

[Bigity]

Oh, now that makes more sense. I find it hard to tell what he means sometimes.

[Captain Pink]

Sorry, but it is also hard to actually tell what I mean in english.
@advic: We do have. But if the owner of the company does evade taxes, it becomes quite hard to get him. You know faked bills aso.
@Deacon: I have payed attention. You are talking about oppertunities to take? than tell me which oppertunity does someone with cnacer in the late stadium have? Or someone who got infected with HIV, threatend to death by a simple cold and without the strength to get his disease driven body out of bed? I still think that you are lucky to be at good health, as I am too.
For your family: Good to have one. But the costs of treating a paraplectic or comatiuos person can easily be enough to ruin more then just one person.
@minsx: An idea is only as good as you do it.
For accidents: They do happen quite often, I think.
For success and luck: Of cause efford is the surest way to succed. I am not gelous about successfull people. But they also have been lucky that they could bring their efford to a good end. Many people work "their asses off" and still get nowhere. Only if efford and oppertunities come together, than there can be success (except lottery, but this is totaly luck).

[Deacon]

Bigity, I think it was to the Netherlands, IIRC. But yeah, he did that to decrease his tax bill while telling everyone else in Ireland that they should stop griping about the high taxes and should actually be sacrificing more. Fabulous.

[quote="Captain Pink";p="716146"]@Deacon: I have payed attention. You are talking about oppertunities to take? than tell me which oppertunity does someone with cnacer in the late stadium have? Or someone who got infected with HIV, threatend to death by a simple cold and without the strength to get his disease driven body out of bed? I still think that you are lucky to be at good health, as I am too.
For your family: Good to have one. But the costs of treating a paraplectic or comatiuos person can easily be enough to ruin more then just one person.[/quote]
What opportunity does a dying man have? To be comfortable and die. I don't know what your point is. Perhaps you can make a point instead of asking questions? We're talking about regular people, here, and who is responsible for their wellbeing and success: the individual or everyone else. I say that it's up to the individual to be a productive member of society rather than a leech feeding off the efforts of productive members of society.

As far as these costs associated with being paralyzed, what does that really have to do with anything? And no, a wheelchair isn't that expensive. But that's what families do: they make sacrifices for each other. I know it's been popular in American society (European, too?) over the last few decades to downplay the importance of family and the role it plays in our lives, choosing instead to insert The Government as a surrogate, but I don't believe that's right. Regardless, just because you can't walk in no way means you're prevented from being a productive member of society. I like to walk and run and everything else, but God forbid I lost the use of my legs, it would make no impact on my ability to do my job, nor most jobs out there. And if I somehow lost the use of my arms and hands or whatever, that puts me in a position where I have to rethink my career and consider putting my talents and skills to work in a different avenue. And you know what? If I don't have any talents or skills, it's my own damn fault anyway, or I come from some seriously fucked up genetic stock and really shouldn't be raising my own family regardless. It's not everyone's lot in life to be wealthy, healthy, and happy. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Success isn't a right. It's something you earn.

For success and luck: Of cause efford is the surest way to succed. I am not gelous about successfull people. But they also have been lucky that they could bring their efford to a good end. Many people work "their asses off" and still get nowhere. Only if efford and oppertunities come together, than there can be success (except lottery, but this is totaly luck).

Actually, no, you still have to choose to pay to play the lottery to before you have any chance to win it, but of course it's probably the highest degree of luck anywhere. And yeah, some successful people luck into it, but that's very rare, and they're rarely successful for long if they don't have the skills and intelligence to back it up. And no, if you works hard, you will not go hungry. Of course, hard work in and of itself doesn't equal success. You have to choose where and when to apply that work to maximize your success. Working smart helps. But if you're really that great a worker, even if you squandered your education or are fairly unintelligent and are doing only menial or low-end blue-collar jobs, you might not be driving brand new luxury cars and live in a mansion, but you'll be able to live and support yourself and your family.

[JudgeMental]

Well Deac, what would you say to a single mother of an early teenage boy (single due to an abusive father who one day did them a favor and vanished), separated from family, and quite sick with cancer?

I dislike the welfare system a lot, but on occasion, it does work as it should.

[Deacon]

I'd say that's a pretty rare and extreme example of hyperbole, but there are a number of charities to contact, special-case opportunities around the country for just such a situation, and it's very likely that such a case would make for a great segment on the local evening news and story for the paper that can include info on where donations can be made to assist. Additionally, the father, abusive or otherwise, is legally obligated in most (all?) states to provide something toward the care of his child.

You think Welfare is going to pay for a prolonged fight with cancer, regardless? It sounds like what you actually have a problem with is the high price of medical care rather than whose responsibility it is to pony up for it. That's a whole other messed up ball of wax that I agree should be melted down...

[JudgeMental]

Actually, that's not hyperbole. It's the exact situation one of my best friends was in. Charities and an old insurance policy took care of the medical expense, but welfare kept food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Granted, it is an unusual case. Like I said, I dislike the welfare system in general, but there are cases where it does good.

Posted Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:20 pm:

By the way, he's almost twenty now, and his mom has been cancer free for three years. They're still struggling, but right now all the assistance they get is about $150 worth of food stamps each month; everything else they take care of now.

[Bigity]

I don't think anyone wants to end welfare and the like for people who legitimately need the services. The problem is, there are far more people leaning on the crutch of welfare than people standing up using the crutch of welfare.