Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (235277)	10/20/2013 11:56:53 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542495

Decisions will have to be made--if we do this it means we can't do that. There is not an unlimited amount of money available. More importantly I not sure personally, that having a welfare state (don't get married, draw a welfare check, send your kid off to free child care) is in of itself a good thing. What kind of nation is that making is the over riding question? We made it to 1950 (more or less) without this system and now we have untold numbers of government dependents. Why do we want to keep encouraging the formation of such is also the question that needs to be asked. I personally am for shutting down government aid to the unmarried going forward say one year out (all present recipients keep benefits). In the long run I think it will make us stronger and make people stand on thier own feet. It used to be families made sure, more or less, responsibility went with having kids and having lived in that era I think it was better. It made for stronger families because if one broke the rules there were consequences. Now what do we have---breeding without responsibility. And responsible people resent having to support the irresponsible through higher taxes. That is probably the basis of a large part of the political divisions in this country and has fractured our culture and led to the grid lock in Washinton.