> Dana wrote: >I find your vision a bit hard to believe. > And as long as we're making clarification I should mention that I am agreeing with Maureen and the others who oppose to giving money to deadbeats. That's it.
I'm saying that from a policy perspective we need to come with a better way to help people and, like Maureen, I know people who specifically got pregnant just for the Welfare check. That was the plan: have a baby and then I won't need a job because the gov't will pay for everything. And, for awhile, it worked!! To me, when you have a system that not only spawns that concept, but encourages it, it's enslavement. I know that, emotionally, it might fun to mock that term but in do so you deny the reality of it and I can name 3 mothers that were enslaved and are only now, 16 years after the fact, becoming productive and only because the Welfare policy changed. So, unless there's anyone on this list that wants Welfare for deadbeats, I think we're all in agreement. The disagreement is over how to avoid creating deadbeats while we're helping the others. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:195334 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
