BF wants sex without a protection/condom!

[roobarb]

BS. Show me the numbers. People need dignity not handouts. Put taxes into education and jobs.

Show me the numbers that almost no one in your grandparents generation needed welfare.

[IndiReloaded]

before the Great Depression, most social services were provided by religious charities and other private groups. Changing government policy between the 1930s and 1960s saw the emergence of a welfare state, similar to many Western European countries. Most programs from that era are still in use, although many were scaled back during the 1990s as government priorities shifted towards reducing debt and deficit.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare]Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

Here are some more interesting numbers, also from wiki tho there are reference at the bottom of the article:

In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%.[17] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.[18] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[19] In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.

Good heavens, are we REALLY becoming poorer??

[IndiReloaded]

Relating to my post about jobs and dignity, this is also interesting reading:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Recon ciliation_Act]Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[roobarb]

w*ww.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/sf1999%28poverty%29.pdf

This suggests that Welfare states have reduced poverty. Not increased it. And nothing in what you posted suggests that almost no one needed poverty back in your grandparents day.

And just for the record, I am in favour of a Nordic style of welfare, where parts of the payments do not go directly to families but to services they utilise.

And no we haven't necessarily become poorer. Those figures most likely reflect the greater number of women not staying in marriages as it became more socially acceptable to leave a marriage. A fact I'm surprised you overlooked.

[IndiReloaded]

w*ww.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/sf1999%28poverty%29.pdf

This suggests that Welfare states have reduced poverty. Not increased it. And nothing in what you posted suggests that almost no one needed poverty back in your grandparents day.

They didn't need it because it wasn't available. And clearly they managed.

And just for the record, I am in favour of a Nordic style of welfare, where parts of the payments do not go directly to families but to services they utilise.

Better. But no payment should go directly to anyone. It should be earned. The billions of dollars could go towards... increasing minimum wage?

And no we haven't necessarily become poorer. Those figures most likely reflect the greater number of women not staying in marriages as it became more socially acceptable to leave a marriage. A fact I'm surprised you overlooked.

I didn't overlook it. Its something that society is not better off for. The numbers reinforce that as well.

For myself, its about choice. I have no problem (as I already said) paying taxes to better society. But I want to choose where it goes. If the government I voted in office says: put 10% of your tax into a charitable service of your choice, I would choose public education and job creation. But just imagine--even bleeding hearts who decide to fund welfare would drop a program like rats fleeing a sinking ship if it became known that the system was being abused. The choice aspect would make the system much more accountable.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay, I read that article. Did you read the section comparing Canada and US? Despite similar GDP per capita Canada has done better w/its social-welfare programs. The author was american and didn't mention our social healthcare and heavily subsidized education system--including post-secondary. Also better tax credit programs. So, you haven't convinced me that giving out cheques is really what is important.

[IndiReloaded]

And just for fun, I'll add this to the discussion:

[url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1/cj16n1-1.pdf[/url]

[MaidenMinx]

Wow!!

Note to self, never say I enjoy sex without condoms again if I don't want to start a socio-economic debate.

And just to try to swing back to the original question, one thing I have discovered throughout this is that Americans seem to be a lot more assertive about the necessity of condoms. Honestly I have discussed this thread with friends and a lot of them agree with me that sex without condoms in a monogamous trusting relationship is not a problem.

Oh and another common comment when I mention that the initial person making a big deal over it all was American....

"Go lecture Octomum!!!"

[qwertz]

I find this hard to believe. Government aid usually isn't much; it's the bare minimum. People who live off government aid live in very poor circumstances, they would not be able to afford all this without working. I don't know where you live, but I can't imagine that government aid is that generous. Are you sure they don't have another source of income, like an inheritance?

Well believe it, i'm in the UK and this is happening all the time. Its ridiculous.

[IndiReloaded]

I don't really have anything else to post on this. Someone who would post this:

if the government is handing out money and you are eligible, why shouldn't you take it?

is obviously of a different mindset than I am. I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't take a handout, but I doubt you would understand them. Its basically the same reasons I wouldn't steal from a store, or empty out a lost wallet I found on the ground, or not leave a note if I dented someone's car in a parking lot.

[IndiReloaded]

Well believe it, i'm in the UK and this is happening all the time. Its ridiculous.

Did you watch the Bartholemew clip? He's from the UK. Worth the 4 minutes. BTW, the whole lecture is on the cato site if interested. There's a rebuttal, but not very convincing, IMO.

[CAM]

I'm sure you still manage to live a comfortable lifestyle, despite the small percentage that the government takes from you every year.

How much is a 'small percentage' to you? LOL you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

ShellyZ doesn't get it. Liberal government is build on the principle of private property and individual rights. That sentence would be lost on ShellyZ, but yet she gets to be part of our social contract. My income is my property. It is not someting that you decide is too much, too little, or just right. It is what I earned for me; not for you. Government is about providing for commonly needed security and protection of property rights.

ShellyZ, do you agree with the following sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Answer: of course you do. Guess who said it? Karl Marx. You are a Marxist. You are ignorant and stupid and follow the gravy train created by the politicians to buy your vote and keep you quiet.

Small percentage, huh? Government spends over 40 percent of all the wealth that is produced in the US. Is that a small percentage? Of the money it spends, over 70 percent of it is for entitlement programs for you and others. We spend less than 7 percent of gross domestic product on our defense...and that's with the cost of wars built in.

You are an idiot and we pay to support you so you can create more idiots.

[CAM]

Yes they are expensive. Take away the welfare system and look at how many people will resort to crime to survive. How much more will it cost the government then?
There are a lot of migrants who did work hard. But look at the size of the criminal underclass of those times as well. It was a lot larger than now in comparison to the population size.

As the welfare states decay, look what emerges? Crime. Anarchism is alive and well and is on the rise, particularly among those classes who used to get checks and now don't. You may reduce crime and violence through the carrot of welfare, but that only lasts as long as the checks keep coming. You don't built any sense of responsibility through handing out money. You just buy time.

[MaidenMinx]

I don't really have anything else to post on this. Someone who would post this:



is obviously of a different mindset than I am. I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't take a handout, but I doubt you would understand them. Its basically the same reasons I wouldn't steal from a store, or empty out a lost wallet I found on the ground, or not leave a note if I dented someone's car in a parking lot.

I am pretty sure I already said we have a difference of opinions.

I don't steal, I hand in wallets and if I cause someone a problem ( I don't drive so that analogy doesn't work for me) I own up to it and take responsibility. If you can receive something that will better your child and therefore the chances for the next generation, go for it!!!!!

Then again I feel like I am arguing with people that are driven by money rather than compassion. (and by the way, I can acknowledge that I just made an assumption. According to the assumptions made on me I am an irresponsible bludger that pumps out defective children and leaves them for other people to worry about. Nothing could be further from the truth)