Would you be prepared to pay money from your pocket to a person who refuses to work, because they have a hard luck story brought on by their refusal to take a perfectly good job that was offered to them by the employment agency and that they sign a bi-weekly contract promising to be actively seeking employment? (signing on)

You may do - but I say why is it that British unemployed consider themselves better than EU unemployed that they refuse to take a job that the EU immigrant is prepared to do?

Why do you avoid the logic of this? maybe you agree that the British unemployed is a better class of unemployed than the EU unemployed? Or is it that they have become 'benifit dependent' due to the high level of benifits on offer.

A I said previously - I accept the need for a welfare system, but I question the level of the UK benifits that it encourages a perfectly able adult to refuse to take a job - that our Polish friends are happy to take.

__________________
Russian Imperialism is a greater danger to the World today than AlQueda terrorism

Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the government.

Wow what a concept. Like I mentioned in a previous post though, libs don't believe in responsibility, if you want something and don't have it, whine to the nanny state until your representative gives it to you.

__________________

our "poverty line" line is a joke. if you make more than $30k a year, youre in the top 10% of the world population in terms of anual income. most americans dont know what poverty is.

it should work that way
but if the kid was the product of sorry parents, why should the child have to suffer because the parents are irresponsible?
while it many violate some libertarian principles to which i normally subscribe (keeping the government out of our lives where it does not belong) i am inclined to think we should require a license to have children.
it's too easy for irresponsible people to breed kids that society has to provide for
we require a driver's license. gotta have a license to get married. hell, even have to have one to catch fish. imposing a license requirement should compel prospective parents to be in a position to be expected to financially and emotionally care for the children they have

__________________

Quote:

"I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right."

Frank Zappa

This is as unlibertarian as one can possibly get. Limited government is always the better route. I know some kids suffer, but do you really think that it is within our means to provide for every single individual who is lacking without infringing upon the rights of people who are responsible for themselves and their children.

__________________

while i am not a Christian, i do subscribe to the belief that how we treat the least among us reflects the character of a society. want to deprive assistance to the able i am with you - unless that also means withholding food and shelter from little children. the immorality is magnified when a rich society would willingly inflict that harm
right now there is a linkage between welfare and children that morally justifies assisting those adults who do not deserve help so that some of what is provided (hopefully) reaches the blameless children who are entitled to our help.
but how efficient is a welfare system that throws money at irresponsible people in the hope that some of what is made available actually aids the welfare of the kids.
and we fundamentally disagree if you believe allowing little children to go cold and hungry is a reasonable price to pay for the principle of limited government

__________________

Quote:

"I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right."

Frank Zappa

Maybe removing the children from these homes would be the motivation they need to get their act together. /shrug

I do understand what your saying on this, children shouldn't be made to suffer because their folks couln't get it together, but I also don't think the burden should fall on the American tax payer. Perhaps if we weren't shelling out 25% of our paychecks to uncle sam we'd have a little extra to toss to charities that could fill in these gaps in our current system. The free market has a way of finding solutions to issues, but the govt can't keep it's grubby hands out of it long enough for solutions to be found.

__________________

Why should my family suffer because my hard earned money is paying for some sorryass parents who don't take care of their own dam children?


A license is nothing more than a tax.

It's not a secrete I've heard it before . Even right today my friend who owns 3 dunkin donuts can not find steady help, they make at least minimum wage and get a couple of small raises the 2 month and after 6 months , you think at least college kids would be lining up, are we as a society to lazy to work because welfare is offered up so easy? My mother said she once was going to apply for help because my Dad was laid off but they(the city) shamed her not to. We did not starve my parents are doing quite well to this day , assistance should be temporary and should have a definite cut off date, the problem in this feel good world is people feel entitled to welfare handouts,

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43