HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:
You can't be a drug user and a moocher. You must choose one!!!

okay, maybe i misunderstood the position. seemed like you wanted welfare and such programs done away with, not just that drug users would be denied to them.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
You can't be a drug user and a moocher. You must choose one!!!

okay, maybe i misunderstood the position. seemed like you wanted welfare and such programs done away with, not just that drug users would be denied to them.

My preference is to make such things private. Then drug use and its consequences can be handled between and insurance company and the individual.

But yes, I am ok with limited versions of everything I mentioned, but drug and alcohol testing should be done.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
You can't be a drug user and a moocher. You must choose one!!!

okay, maybe i misunderstood the position. seemed like you wanted welfare and such programs done away with, not just that drug users would be denied to them.

My preference is to make such things private. Then drug use and its consequences can be handled between and insurance company and the individual.

But yes, I am ok with limited versions of everything I mentioned, but drug and alcohol testing should be done.

that seems pretty fair to me.

Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

if you're on public assistance, volunteer work should be mandatory. (if you're able, thinking of someone in jason's position again) so, even if you can't find work to earn a wage, you're still contributing.

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Would that not be a pretty awful thing to do, start punishing actual babies and infants? Because I'm pretty sure that's where the pain will come, really...

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Would that not be a pretty awful thing to do, start punishing actual babies and infants? Because I'm pretty sure that's where the pain will come, really...

Proper perspective. You crap out 3, government says okay we will help with money, food stamps and room and board. You want to crap out 4, 5 and 6 you make due or get off the teat. Some might think twice before spreading their legs or engaging in questionable sexual antics.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Would that not be a pretty awful thing to do, start punishing actual babies and infants? Because I'm pretty sure that's where the pain will come, really...

Proper perspective. You crap out 3, government says okay we will help with money, food stamps and room and board. You want to crap out 4, 5 and 6 you make due or get off the teat. Some might think twice before spreading their legs or engaging in questionable sexual antics.

No they won't. They'll crap them out anyway, and then they'll just treat them worse and feed them less. That's what tends to happen in the rest of the world. People keep having kids in many places despite no safety net. You'd just be creating a situation where kids get mistreated and live worse lives.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Would that not be a pretty awful thing to do, start punishing actual babies and infants? Because I'm pretty sure that's where the pain will come, really...

Proper perspective. You crap out 3, government says okay we will help with money, food stamps and room and board. You want to crap out 4, 5 and 6 you make due or get off the teat. Some might think twice before spreading their legs or engaging in questionable sexual antics.

No they won't. They'll crap them out anyway, and then they'll just treat them worse and feed them less. That's what tends to happen in the rest of the world. People keep having kids in many places despite no safety net. You'd just be creating a situation where kids get mistreated and live worse lives.

I'd agree, and that's crazy to me, to just accept the parents saying fuck it all, I'll do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no consequences or responsibility. And you are fine to pay for that. You must break the bad parts of the human condition. It's not easy, but you gotta start somewhere. I don't want innocent children to suffer, but they do everyday.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Why drug testing is not already mandatory blows my mind. If you cannot pass a drug test, you are severely limiting your job prospects, and if you are on public assistance, you should be actively seeking work.

Mandatory drug tests for government assistance should be the law I agree with that and also a dependent limit.

What's a dependent limit?

How many anchor babies you are allowed to crap out before you no longer get assistance for them.

Would that not be a pretty awful thing to do, start punishing actual babies and infants? Because I'm pretty sure that's where the pain will come, really...

Proper perspective. You crap out 3, government says okay we will help with money, food stamps and room and board. You want to crap out 4, 5 and 6 you make due or get off the teat. Some might think twice before spreading their legs or engaging in questionable sexual antics.

No they won't. They'll crap them out anyway, and then they'll just treat them worse and feed them less. That's what tends to happen in the rest of the world. People keep having kids in many places despite no safety net. You'd just be creating a situation where kids get mistreated and live worse lives.

I'd agree, and that's crazy to me, to just accept the parents saying fuck it all, I'll do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no consequences or responsibility. And you are fine to pay for that. You must break the bad parts of the human condition. It's not easy, but you gotta start somewhere. I don't want innocent children to suffer, but they do everyday.

If you cant support yourself than probably not a good idea to keep having kids. And paying people extra assistance money for each kid is stupid.

Paying that money isn't to support the mom. It's to ensure kids are given a fair chance st life.

showa58taro wrote:Paying that money isn't to support the mom. It's to ensure kids are given a fair chance st life.

They should be taken from the mom and the mom should be billed for the care.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Paying that money isn't to support the mom. It's to ensure kids are given a fair chance st life.

They should be taken from the mom and the mom should be billed for the care.

Every child or is there a specificity here?

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Paying that money isn't to support the mom. It's to ensure kids are given a fair chance st life.

They should be taken from the mom and the mom should be billed for the care.

Every child or is there a specificity here?

At the point where the parents cannot give them a fair chance at life, as described by you.

There was a heart-warming story I read a couple weeks ago. About 17 and 19 year old kids, on their 4th child. The previous 3 children all investigated and taken by Child Protected Services. Now this couple is still allowed to have a 4th child in their shit-ridden dump, and while they were passed out, their 3 month old child was eaten alive by rats in her crib. Had 100 or more bite marks and scratches on her face and hands (I guess she was in some kind of one-sie to protect the rest of her, thank god). The baby survived, but will need considerable reconstructive surgery on her face.

Let's continue to support that shit. Instead of ending the cycle of shit that allows it to begin with.

Reign in Blood wrote:There was a heart-warming story I read a couple weeks ago. About 17 and 19 year old kids, on their 4th child. The previous 3 children all investigated and taken by Child Protected Services. Now this couple is still allowed to have a 4th child in their shit-ridden dump, and while they were passed out, their 3 month old child was eaten alive by rats in her crib. Had 100 or more bite marks and scratches on her face and hands (I guess she was in some kind of one-sie to protect the rest of her, thank god). The baby survived, but will need considerable reconstructive surgery on her face.

Let's continue to support that shit. Instead of ending the cycle of shit that allows it to begin with.

What fucking cunts. Hopefully the rats got a taste for it and eat the pair of them.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Paying that money isn't to support the mom. It's to ensure kids are given a fair chance st life.

They should be taken from the mom and the mom should be billed for the care.

Every child or is there a specificity here?

At the point where the parents cannot give them a fair chance at life, as described by you.

You seem to be conflating the idea of needing financial assistance here with some other concept, not even sure which. Or perhaps the conversation has gotten confused.