LOL. Posting that link convinced me. Ya see, I'm simple suh, and I always takes a part and use it to generalize fo' the whole.

^good try at wit


but in all seriousness it more common then i think you realize...my wife teaches at an intercity school with special need kids, they are on welfare with medicare, and i don't mean just one or two...all of them

Of the 100 + plus special need kids she has worked with in her teaching career every one has been on Medicare or some form and the home family ahs been on welfare

And each and every home life abuses the systems b/c people seem to feel that they have a “right”

Don’t even get me started on the level of entitlement that comes from your “rights”

All it is doing is breading a generation of parasites that don’t understand you have to give something back and cant just take, even if you think its your “right” to

I am not saying people don’t need help, b/c of humane nature there will always be people that need help, but what you and others seem to forget is that there are more people that can then cant using those systems

You didn't read the question correctly.  

I don't believe in "rights." So I don't think people have a right to anything. I thought it was quite funny that you did, and continue to, use anecdotes as evidence. That's why its funny. I realize that people abuse welfare. Just like people abuse anything that is given, or at times, earned.

While, I do believe that poverty becomes facilitated and lengthened by welfare, it is in the state's interest to keep its population healthy. It has nothing to do with 'rights.'

I think California has a problem with welfare, because California accounts for 34% of the Welfare in the United States (Welfare limits should be enforced). I don't disagree with your logic.

I checked out Health and Human Services .gov in fiscal 2008 about 4.0 million per month people received some welfare benefits. According to the website, 3.0 million of the 4.0 million receiving benefits were children. Interesting, I wonder how they classify the money as going to the children when it has to go through the parents?

Wowee. This is a doozie of a thread, but I have read well over half of the posts. I must say that Mafoo and MRStickball and now Meso are taking up many of the points I would like to say as well.

Those that accept govt. assistance have to indicate how many children they have, and they recieve assistance from the govt. based on how many kids they have. So if you have more kids, the government gives you more money. Go to any food bank, or govt. center that gives medicare, welfare, food, ect, and they have minimum guidelines for assistance - and it's entirely based on how many kids you have.

For example, $20,000 is the guideline for poverty in America (give or take 10%). For every extra person in your household, the $20,000 baseline increases by $4,800. So a mom & dad with 5 kids would need to make over $48,800 to not qualify for assistance.

I know I harp on it, but I worked at a food pantry for much of my high-school years (as part of my cirriculum). The government-backed assistance that we could give was entirely based on a family proving how many children they had - we had to insure that every person in the household was receiving enough food for 3 meals a day for 1 week.

Now, having said all of that, it does not mean that the government has a good set of guidelines for how the assistance is administered on the kids. A mother could get cash-based welfare, and spend all of the money on herself, leaving her kids to starve to death. This is why it's so important to have very focused welfare for the truly needy, and not the truly want-y. Which is why I support private-based charity that focuses on giving to those that are in the class of people that really need the assistance.

And I agree that it's in the government's best interest to keep it's population smart, healthy, active, and above board. However, the crux of the issue is if it's intristicly the governments job to take it upon themselves, and only themselves, to administer their population what's involved with being smart, healthy, active, and above board.

That’s not true, every one has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

The problem is b/c of how society is brain washing us everyone thinks in a “me” mentality that means your only have rights as long as they don’t effect me and I should get everything I feel I am entitled to regardless if you get it and doubly regardless if I have earned it

And what compounds the probem is that good people that want to help are doing it the wrong way,  instead of a hand out it really needs to become a hand up

How can they at one point be called inalienable rights and then can only be revoked in the 14th ammendment by due process but that doesn't even matter 'cause the constitution can be put on hold during war or times of turmoil. A rightof life would entail the government taking action to preserve life.

Society has been brainwashing people with a 'me' mentality? I thought this thread was started on the premise that taxation was too high?

If those rights were rights, then the government would be accountable for so much more. There genereal guidelines, maybe even ideals, but not rights in the way you seem to be presenting them. Although, I think we will have to remain in disagreement on this one. I wish we had inalienable rights, but we don't.

^we do, its just that some people try to take them away from others, that the fourth right...the right to be a dick---that's one that gets abused way to much

If a right can be taken away, how is it "inalienable"?