I don't understand. Are you saying that Romania - a country in which half the population receives some form of welfare, and worse, a country which produced sapphi_snake - is an example of what happens after you dismantle a welfare state? Because I'm not seeing it.

i would like to see those "workers" take the "pencil-pushers" position and see how long that company stays afloat.

I'd like to see the pencil-pushers put in a day on the line and see if they don't die of a massive coronary.

The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the "47%" statement is wrong. It's not. 46.4% of America does not pay federal income tax. Go check for yourself. A person who's not paying taxes isn't going to vote for anything that will require them to pay even a small amount of their share.

The hard reality is that too many Americans are on the government dole. A person who is receiving money from the government is less likely to vote for anything that could reduce or eliminate that income. It's as simple as that. There are people who need help, but too many are taking advantage of a broken welfare system. Should we take care of our veterans? Yes. Should we allow an able bodied fourth generation welfare recipient to never get a job? No. There needs to be a path to self reliance. A government safety net is good, but we've let it become a comfortable hammock that too many are content to rest on forever.

The problem is that number keeps creeping up. If it ever dips beyond 49% or overflows past 50% then this country will be in real danger of failing. The minority can't take care of the majority. Right now 53% of America is paying the taxes that the 47% are not. A lot of people like to say that things aren't fair in America. Well how is it fair that nearly half of the population isn't doing their share and wants the half that is paying to pay more?

Romney's only mistake was forgetting that people don't like the truth if it embarrasses them.

Romania's as fucked up as it is because Caucescu decided to ban all birth control in an effort to get a bigger labor force. It didn't help things.

Also, i can't believe anyone's suggesting that needy children should be tossed off of welfare to prevent the births of more needy children. That's just heartless.

with little to no training, they would be able to do a satisfactory job within a few weeks.

the same cannot be said for "pencil pusher" jobs

Because welfare is the only way to take care of the needy. You really need to read Bastiat.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

I can think of a lot of reasons why Romania's fucked up. A long dead dictator banning birth control isn't in the top 10.

Yeah and has religious indoctrination and education rates been tested against that? Availablity of birthcontrol does not mean that women have been educated on its existence, proper use, or that the education they recieved teaches that birth control is effective. Also consider the steep incline in population since the 1960's...that is going to inflate that number of 'poor choices.'

I lived in a primarily rural area for 14 years. I can tell you most of my friends were preganant before they left high school. None of them on birth control, most of them because their familes were either A) poor, B) highly religous and against birth control and or, C) completely unapproachable about sex and its reprecutions. Even worse, half were married before they could even go to college. Despite the non-availablity (either from lack of money or denial of permission) these women were still having sex and producing children they could not afford. So a good percetage of that number can be attributed to ignorance and or education.

Now you want to talk about me and my wife, both of which have had multiple sexual partners (mine being right around 20 and hers being damn near 100) both practicing safe sex either through use of condoms, birth control...I'm 31, she's 27, there are no children between us either from previous sexual relationships or the current ones...Now living in a major metropolitan area, most of the working professionals are around my age or younger...most don't have kids or if they do they were planned. Most of the girls are highly sexual and do not have comitted relationships. The reason? They simply don't have time, they are too busy working, but becuase sex is pleasureable, so they have their 'friends', a very loose term for whoever is cute, decent in bed, and they met at club wherever.

Get out of town a little bit (about 20 miles west) its an area high concentrated by Mexican familes, of which have meager incomes, non-skilled workers, who are mostly catholic...every single one of them have kids (between 3-5 on average.) Point being, your statistics may be accurate, but either they don't or you aren't addressing all the factors which may be because you didn't consider them or because you don't want to consider them.

Correlation is not causation.

What's the break down of this number? How many fourth generation welfare recipients are there actually in America? That number can't be that large.

Romney is hardly a poster child for truth and is a poor candidate for commander in chief...we all know that Paul was the best the GOP had to offer, but was snuffed out, despite the fact that he is the best thing this country has seen in a long time.