Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-17-2006, 02:10 AM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,347
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
it seemed a realitively simple process for the state to recover the money if he was one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its fairly simple when your on the grid- ie get a paycheck and pay taxes. Those off the grid and already avoiding taxes getting paid cash it provides an added benefit to continue on the outskirts, and they can be very hard to track down. Once again its those who are more likely to be law abiding who are punished by the system while those who are on the shadier sides of life have fewer negatives.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-17-2006, 10:37 AM
haarley haarley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 134
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

Welfare is bad because it punishes those who act responsibly and rewards those who act irresponsibly. People who abuse their children should be shunned by society not rewarded. If you don’t feed your dog you could go to jail but don’t feed your kid and you start reaping rewards! Something is clearly wrong here. Mothers who refuse to care for their children are just as despicable as fathers who neglect their children. If you have a child take care of them WTF is wrong with people.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-17-2006, 11:21 AM
Freerollin` Freerollin` is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Less poker more sports betting
Posts: 1,469
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
No, it would be cuel and unsual to make him responsible for the state's fees associated with making him pay...10 times the amount he owed.

And I don't think it would be a deterent either, (if the first cost they couldn't afford wasn't a deterent, why would 10 times it be one?), it would simply cause even more poor people to file for bankruptcy and be eternally destitue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

Jeez, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy pay for the state's efforts to hunt him down and force him to pay child support because it was 10x the amount he owed. It must be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy who pleads guilty to a crime to pay for the state's expenses in preparing for trial, too...oh, wait, that's common.

You do realize that when the state requires payment for its expenditures here, it's a civil penalty and not a criminal one, right? Therefore, the 8th amendment doesn't even come into play. Don't just make things out of thin air.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-18-2006, 04:40 AM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 646
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it would be cuel and unsual to make him responsible for the state's fees associated with making him pay...10 times the amount he owed.

And I don't think it would be a deterent either, (if the first cost they couldn't afford wasn't a deterent, why would 10 times it be one?), it would simply cause even more poor people to file for bankruptcy and be eternally destitue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

Jeez, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy pay for the state's efforts to hunt him down and force him to pay child support because it was 10x the amount he owed. It must be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy who pleads guilty to a crime to pay for the state's expenses in preparing for trial, too...oh, wait, that's common.

You do realize that when the state requires payment for its expenditures here, it's a civil penalty and not a criminal one, right? Therefore, the 8th amendment doesn't even come into play. Don't just make things out of thin air.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was obviously using 'cruel and unusual' loosely ie meaning really really harsh, pointless and cruel and was not making an 8th amendment argument.

Therefore

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to work on your reading skills.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-18-2006, 10:41 AM
Freerollin` Freerollin` is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Less poker more sports betting
Posts: 1,469
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it would be cuel and unsual to make him responsible for the state's fees associated with making him pay...10 times the amount he owed.

And I don't think it would be a deterent either, (if the first cost they couldn't afford wasn't a deterent, why would 10 times it be one?), it would simply cause even more poor people to file for bankruptcy and be eternally destitue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

Jeez, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy pay for the state's efforts to hunt him down and force him to pay child support because it was 10x the amount he owed. It must be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy who pleads guilty to a crime to pay for the state's expenses in preparing for trial, too...oh, wait, that's common.

You do realize that when the state requires payment for its expenditures here, it's a civil penalty and not a criminal one, right? Therefore, the 8th amendment doesn't even come into play. Don't just make things out of thin air.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was obviously using 'cruel and unusual' loosely ie meaning really really harsh, pointless and cruel and was not making an 8th amendment argument.

Therefore

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to work on your reading skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly response. You imply that a state's action was/is cruel and unusual but later claim that you didn't mean it in the constitutional sense, rather you obviously meant it in the plain meaning sense. The constitutional sense of the phrase is the plain meaning of the phrase. You'd be hard pressed to find usage of the phrase that didn't refer to the constitutional meaning.

No one says that a state's action is "cruel and unusual" and then later makes a serious claim that they didn't mean it in the constitutional sense.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:17 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 646
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it would be cuel and unsual to make him responsible for the state's fees associated with making him pay...10 times the amount he owed.

And I don't think it would be a deterent either, (if the first cost they couldn't afford wasn't a deterent, why would 10 times it be one?), it would simply cause even more poor people to file for bankruptcy and be eternally destitue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

Jeez, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy pay for the state's efforts to hunt him down and force him to pay child support because it was 10x the amount he owed. It must be cruel and unusual punishment to make a guy who pleads guilty to a crime to pay for the state's expenses in preparing for trial, too...oh, wait, that's common.

You do realize that when the state requires payment for its expenditures here, it's a civil penalty and not a criminal one, right? Therefore, the 8th amendment doesn't even come into play. Don't just make things out of thin air.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was obviously using 'cruel and unusual' loosely ie meaning really really harsh, pointless and cruel and was not making an 8th amendment argument.

Therefore

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to work on your reading skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly response. You imply that a state's action was/is cruel and unusual but later claim that you didn't mean it in the constitutional sense, rather you obviously meant it in the plain meaning sense. The constitutional sense of the phrase is the plain meaning of the phrase. You'd be hard pressed to find usage of the phrase that didn't refer to the constitutional meaning.

No one says that a state's action is "cruel and unusual" and then later makes a serious claim that they didn't mean it in the constitutional sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, you're wrong, that's all there is to it. I did not contradict myself, you just misread.

Since this is simply a matter of your misinterpretation we have no argument.

bye.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-19-2006, 04:13 PM
NickyD NickyD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 40
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it seemed a realitively simple process for the state to recover the money if he was one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its fairly simple when your on the grid- ie get a paycheck and pay taxes. Those off the grid and already avoiding taxes getting paid cash it provides an added benefit to continue on the outskirts, and they can be very hard to track down. Once again its those who are more likely to be law abiding who are punished by the system while those who are on the shadier sides of life have fewer negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree the system attacks those who work. not those who just breed.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-22-2006, 04:38 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 6,508
Default Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so bad

bump.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.