- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Great, so your solution is to increase the crime rate. Then how are you going to pay for the extra police, prisons, parol officers, etc? You have to remember that YOUR consequences for not allowing subsidies can cause even FURTHER costs later on.
Yea the same people who were on welfare as kids because their mothers were on welfare, so its ingrained as a lifestyle.No, but there were a lot of single parents on welfare. The right has said that welfare shouldn't be used in this manner. So you either have subsidies for welfare, daycare or a higher crime rate.
Dont need any more police. I am armed and more than ready able and willing to defend and protect me and mine.
But you think that is the answer? "Oh, we better help these stupid people that did a stupid thing or they may come after me"?
Gee, why dont we just adopt homeless people and families so they dont have to resort to crime.
My god, if this is the mind set. I am not holding out much hope for the future of America.
Yea the same people who were on welfare as kids because their mothers were on welfare, so its ingrained as a lifestyle.
No, but there were a lot of single parents on welfare. The right has said that welfare shouldn't be used in this manner. So you either have subsidies for welfare, daycare or a higher crime rate.
Yet your answer is to let things get worse and higher crime rate.
To you there are only two possibilities apparently: living on government subsidies or crime. What a negative view you have of people.
You talk as if being dependent on the state is a natural thing. It isn't. It is perfectly possible for people to be responsible for ther behavior. If you feel that people should not be responsible for their behavior, then you are denouncing democracy and pleading for governmental control of people's lives.
Wrong, I'm talking about the government giving a hand up to people rather than a hand-out. I'm for welfare reform with limits and education help.
No, but there were a lot of single parents on welfare. The right has said that welfare shouldn't be used in this manner. So you either have subsidies for welfare, daycare or a higher crime rate.
Sure thing, you live in fantasy land all you want and find out what happens.
One obvious solution is fewer single parents. Either have less unprotected sex or learn to work together to be a pair of parents. Part of the problem is that people are brought up believing there are no winners or losers. It's not true. People need to work together and put their kids first.
He's not the one living in fantasy land. He is old enough to see that things worked better in a traditional family unit. There is clear evidence that it has worked better in the past. Change for change's sake is not progress.
So what is your choice force people to stay married? Force people to marry?
Things change and things have changed. So the need to solve problems NOW not live in the past.
So what is your choice force people to stay married? Force people to marry?
Things change and things have changed. So the need to solve problems NOW not live in the past.
State subsidies usually create more problems than they solve. You may also have heard about this other tiny problem called a budget deficit?
Yet your answer is to let things get worse and higher crime rate.
So if you remove subisides for children to go to when parents give them up, remove subsidies for welfare, you have children and parents living in the streets with a higher crime rate. What's the cost for prisons, guards, etc?
You are the one who wants to force people because they can't take care of themselves. I prefer not to force anybody. Are people forced to have seks and produce children?
So if you remove subisides for children to go to when parents give them up, remove subsidies for welfare, you have children and parents living in the streets with a higher crime rate. What's the cost for prisons, guards, etc?
Then build more prisons. If people cannont act accordingly in civil society, jail is where they need to be.
Sure you are you are forcing them on the streets. You can cry absitnence all you want, it won't happen. You can choose to believe people won't have children, that's a fantasy. So you have to deal with the reality people WILL have children they can't afford. So do you want to increase the crime rate with a removal of all subisidies?
Sure thing, you live in fantasy land all you want and find out what happens.
There you again, arguing that parents cannot be expected to take care of their children and will of necessity turn to crime. Where do you get that delusional idea?
So before daycare everybody was living on the streets? Do you know how delusional you sound?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?