Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[plarq]

Librul is better going with your definition. Liberal on the other hand, means "non-conservatives and non-totalitarians". That speaking, G.W Bush is conservative and Ann Coulter totalitarian, that's why liberals fire at them.

 

[JerichoHill]

Elrohir, I think you've missed the fact that the Repubs have now become big government conservatives who want to tell us how to live, and the Dems are taking the liberal (be free) ground.

liberals in america would be very much opposed to this kind of ploy

do y'all realize that this would, in essence, cause riots worse than watts?

 

[Elrohir]

Elrohir, I think you've missed the fact that the Repubs have now become big government conservatives who want to tell us how to live, and the Dems are taking the liberal (be free) ground.

liberals in america would be very much opposed to this kind of ploy

do y'all realize that this would, in essence, cause riots worse than watts?

When Republicans govern badly, they're just like the Democrats. When Democrats govern badly, they're communists. Whether the Republican party would support this measure is irrelevant; it is more in keeping with traditional American liberal philosophy than traditional American conservative philosophy.

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm pretty sure that American liberals don't advocate birth controlling the poor, regardless of the political decade...

I also think , that in terms of debate, we're much better off using the European understandings of liberal vs. conservative, since they are much more stable over time.

Either/Or, its a terrible idea.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm pretty sure that American liberals don't advocate birth controlling the poor, regardless of the political decade...

I also think , that in terms of debate, we're much better off using the European understandings of liberal vs. conservative, since they are much more stable over time.

Either/Or, its a terrible idea.

No, and neither do conservatives. That's not the point. The point is that liberals are, in general, move comfortable with a larger government and more government interference than conservatives are, even if the current administration doesn't always reflect this.

 

[MobBoss]

If a corporation is wealthy, they don't need subsiidies. If they want to take the subsidies, make the CEO's pee in the same cup as everybody else. And why should I be jealous? I make a good income and don't even work very hard at all. The hardest part of my week is with the CEO's on the golf course.

Your arguement is just ridiculous. Business are successful largely because they get certain tax breaks - not necessarily from the federal government either. Many enjoy state, local and city tax breaks as well. You want to change the way the USA does business? Your welcome to try, but I think it works fairly well.

Is a kid better of being raised by its mother in in daycare? Government payments to mothers serves a positive purpose also.

Again, a government subsidy to a corporation is not a payment to the executives of that corporation.

Do you want a druggie running a corporation you invest in? Why are you so against a CEO having to pee in a cup before his company collects a government payday?

I am sure most people who invest money in a particular corporation care about it. However, it hardly has anything to do with government subsidies to individuals. You are being intentonally think and obtuse by continually saying that such executives collect a government payday....they dont. They are paid according to the performance of their business are are accountable to their stockholders.

The government pays out a lot more in unnecessary subsidies to corporations than it does to welfare queens.

I think the country benefits far more from subsidies to corporations than it does from welfare paid to queens or kings. To allege or argue that they are in any way similiar is just stupid.

 

[JollyRoger]

Your arguement is just ridiculous. Business are successful largely because they get certain tax breaks - not necessarily from the federal government either. Many enjoy state, local and city tax breaks as well. You want to change the way the USA does business? Your welcome to try, but I think it works fairly well.

I'm not asking the subsidies to stop - just asking for the highest ranking corporate representaives to prove they are drug free before getting a handout.

Again, a government subsidy to a corporation is not a payment to the executives of that corporation.

Shows how little you know about private sector capitalism. Pay for top executives is tied to profitability. A government subsidy increases profitability and thus increase the executive's pay.

I am sure most people who invest money in a particular corporation care about it. However, it hardly has anything to do with government subsidies to individuals. You are being intentonally think and obtuse by continually saying that such executives collect a government payday....they dont. They are paid according to the performance of their business are are accountable to their stockholders.

If they are taking taxpayewr dolars, they should be accountable to the taxpayers to. It's only a drug test. Why do you want to protect corporate drugees?

I think the country benefits far more from subsidies to corporations than it does from welfare paid to queens or kings. To allege or argue that they are in any ay similiar is just stupid.

So you favor corporations over moms. I bet you vomit at the sight of apple pie.

 

[CCA]

No, this is obviously a capitalist plot to undermine the only strenght the proletariat have in numbers.

If this isn't class warfare I don't know what is

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not asking the subsidies to stop - just asking for the highest ranking corporate representaives to prove they are drug free before getting a handout.

Again, there is no compulsion or arguement to have corp execs do such a thing as they are not being paid with taxpayer money. A corporation is more than just its executives.

Shows how little you know about private sector capitalism. Pay for top executives is tied to profitability. A government subsidy increases profitability and thus increase the executive's pay.

I fully realize that, but who are the executives ultimately responsible to? Not the government, but rather their investors. A fact that you choose to ignore.

If they are taking taxpayewr dolars, they should be accountable to the taxpayers to. It's only a drug test. Why do you want to protect corporate drugees?

I dont...but I dont see where the government has any reason to test them, unlike people participating in the welfare program. This whole line of arguement is just beyond stupid. My suggestion of drug testing people on welfare has merit....the idea of drug testing corporate executives is just ridiculous. Thats my last words on the subject.

So you favor corporations over moms. I bet you vomit at the sight of apple pie.

Not at all.....I save my gastric juices for my contempt over idiotic premises put forth by young librul attorneys.

 

[ShannonCT]

I'm not asking the subsidies to stop - just asking for the highest ranking corporate representaives to prove they are drug free before getting a handout.

.......

If they are taking taxpayewr dolars, they should be accountable to the taxpayers to. It's only a drug test. Why do you want to protect corporate drugees?

If we would just institute the death penalty for drug-dealing, this CEOs-on-crack epidimic would be nipped in the bud.

So you favor corporations over moms. I bet you vomit at the sight of apple pie.

This country was built by our fine, upstanding corporations. The second Sunday in May should be changed to Corporations Day.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

No, this is obviously a capitalist plot to undermine the only strenght the proletariat have in numbers.

If this isn't class warfare I don't know what is

Actually, since it would reduce the amount of poverty, it would be a good thing, no?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

But legally they are. A tax rebate for Xerox for example, isnt a tax rebate for its CEO.

Are they truly separate legal entities in the US? In the UK there is some overlap. A CEO can be punished for the crimes which have been committed by the corporation for example. (Tax evasion, manslaughter)

If they are conjoined in that sense isn't Jolly Roger’s proposition reasonable?

 

[Bad Player]

Is it being mean to poor people if this idea was implemented?

 

[JollyRoger]

Are they truly separate legal entities in the US? In the UK there is some overlap. A CEO can be punished for the crimes which have been committed by the corporation for example. (Tax evasion, manslaughter)

If they are conjoined in that sense isn't Jolly Roger’s proposition reasonable?

Plus, if they want to play that hypertechnical game, a welfare payment to a mother with a child is for the family as a whole, not the mother as an individual.

 

[MobBoss]

Are they truly separate legal entities in the US? In the UK there is some overlap. A CEO can be punished for the crimes which have been committed by the corporation for example. (Tax evasion, manslaughter)

If they are conjoined in that sense isn't Jolly Roger’s proposition reasonable?

A corporation cannot commit manslaughter.

Anyway, CEOs that face such charges do so because they are personally responsible, not because the corporation did something of which they were a party. If they CEOs commited fraud, tax evasion, cooked books, whatever, then they themselves have broken a law - not the corporation.

 

[MobBoss]

Plus, if they want to play that hypertechnical game, a welfare payment to a mother with a child is for the family as a whole, not the mother as an individual.

You are not required to have a child to qualify for welfare.

 

[JollyRoger]

A corporation cannot commit manslaughter.

Anyway, CEOs that face such charges do so because they are personally responsible, not because the corporation did something of which they were a party. If they CEOs commited fraud, tax evasion, cooked books, whatever, then they themselves have broken a law - not the corporation.

Actually a corporation can commit manslaughter through its employees and the executives can be held criminally acountable.

 

[JollyRoger]

You are not required to have a child to qualify for welfare.

A corporation without executives can't qualify for corporate welfare.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

A corporation cannot commit manslaughter.

Can't they? In Britian they can. It's called Gross Negligence Manslaughter, or as it has now been re-named 'corporate manslaughter'.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can't they? In Britian they can. It's called Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

You've got to understand that a longtime government bureaucrat may not have the best understanding of how the private sector works.