Can this happen? can we stop it?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Free birth 'you're not going to have another baby, no matter what choice your make, until your situation gets better' is not.

And within seconds of reading my own post and not wanting to modify it, maybe if you're already on the welfare system (not saying this girl was), but if you're on the system, you're provided with a free implant (depovera ??) and are provided the implant until you can show responsibility for more than one child.  Implied that you've already had one or you don't fall into the system until after one.

It's an arm implant that can be surgically extracted if a woman wants kids.  Why not make them mandatory for all on government assistance, so they can't continue to populate under the 'system'?

[hillary supporter]

Free birth 'you're not going to have another baby, no matter what choice your make, until your situation gets better' is not.

And within seconds of reading my own post and not wanting to modify it, maybe if you're already on the welfare system (not saying this girl was), but if you're on the system, you're provided with a free implant (depovera ??) and are provided the implant until you can show responsibility for more than one child.  Implied that you've already had one or you don't fall into the system until after one.

It's an arm implant that can be surgically extracted if a woman wants kids.  Why not make them mandatory for all on government assistance, so they can't continue to populate under the 'system'?

I dont believe such a option would stand a chance in the American courts. I wonder that the penalty would hurt the child much more than the parent. Such a measure would definitely restrict the individuals liberty that is guaranteed, promised to all Americans.
I believe there is like a strict law against birth in China... like only one child per household? Im ignorant on this chinese issue.
But Chjna is not America, I dont see how such a measure could be constitutional. This would also be such a socialist issue that it just seems to me to be not an option for fighting welfare fraud.

[ChriswUfGator]

Call me nuts, but if you're being headhunted...by welfare...I think you ought to look at paying your employees a living wage.

One person can't live on minimum wage, let alone 4, that is not an acceptable wage, just the red line at which it legally becomes slave labor. We seem to have lost sight of that in this society. Business owners pay as little as they can possibly get away with, regardless of what value is actually being contributed to the business by the employee, and then get pissed and want welfare reform when people leave because it's impossible to feed a family on what they decided to pay? Ridiculous.

And FWIW, I actually would be opposed to requiring welfare recipients to work, because A: That amounts to even more welfare, except this time it's going to the business who fails to pay a living wage. I wouldn't want to condone that practice, let alone subsidize it. And B: It defeats the point of welfare, whose recipients are often in the position they're in because they can't find gainful employment. Note the word 'gainful.'

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh, and FWIW, if you doubt the reality of anything I'm saying, read up on anything WalMart-related.

That Fortune 10 company is the biggest welfare queen in the United States.

[Dog Walker]

I've always wondered what things at Wal-Mart would cost is they had to pay their fair share for the roads over which their trucks run. 

A lot of the big trucks on the road used to have signs on the back that said, "This truck pays $4,### per year in fuel taxes" and I always replied in my head, "Yeah! And does $10,000 worth of damage."

[ChriswUfGator]

The roads aren't 1% of the problem, until they lost a lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general, they didn't provide any healthcare coverage for their non-management level workforce. Combined with minimum-wage salaries, the natural result was 60% of their 900k member workforce was on medicaid and/or welfare assistance programs to make ends meet. That doesn't even include the no doubt extant and large number of workers who had no public assistance but sought treatment in emergency rooms, which are ordered by law to provide it regardless of payment. That is no doubt an incalculable but still considerable cost.

This was all part of their business model. Were it not for these welfare and healthcare assistance programs, they wouldn't have been able to maintain a workforce at the wages they pay for the hours demanded. Which translates, literally, into a Fortune 10 company being the United States' biggest welfare queen. I guess you can color me surprised, based on this thread, that employers' natural response is to eliminate the competition by eliminating welfare or by forcing participants to work while on it, in order to subsidize their refusal to pay a living wage. Kind of mind-boggling, actually. Especially when it's phrased in an anti-welfare / conservative sheep's clothing. Because of course it doesn't cease to be taxpayer-funded welfare just because a business is benefitting from it.

[buckethead]

Is it an employers legal responsibility to provide health insurance for employees?

With the obvious answer being no, is that where the responsibility should lie?

[ChriswUfGator]

Is it an employers legal responsibility to provide health insurance for employees?

With the obvious answer being no, is that where the responsibility should lie?

Why doesn't that logic work when the question is "Does a welfare recipient have a legal obligation to work?"

Seems like you have a double-standard problem here.

[buckethead]

Sorry... I don't see any double standard.

"Does a welfare recipient have a legal obligation to work?"

^^^A means of deflecting the question, and another obvious "no" answer.

Do you care to answer the question directly?

[BridgeTroll]

60% of their 900k member workforce was on medicaid and/or welfare assistance programs

Is this documented some place?

[buckethead]

WOW!

Look at WalMart giving a hand up to those on government assistance programs!

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry... I don't see any double standard.

"Does a welfare recipient have a legal obligation to work?"

^^^A means of deflecting the question, and another obvious "no" answer.

Do you care to answer the question directly?

No more of a deflection than it was when you used the same device.

Sucks having to deal with your own logic, I know.

[ChriswUfGator]

60% of their 900k member workforce was on medicaid and/or welfare assistance programs

Is this documented some place?

No, it's not like they made a documetary about it or anything.

[buckethead]

Sorry... I don't see any double standard.

"Does a welfare recipient have a legal obligation to work?"

^^^A means of deflecting the question, and another obvious "no" answer.

Do you care to answer the question directly?

No more of a deflection than it was when you used the same device.

Sucks having to deal with your own logic, I know.

Thanks for the kind words.

It sometimes does indeed suck having to deal with logic, and for those of you who choose to ignore it, I'm sure life is more blissful. Would you care to help me bear the burden of logic, just this once, by answering a straightforward question directly?

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I think both have already been answered, haven't they?

It's no more an employer's legal obligation to provide health coverage than it is a welfare recipient's legal obligation to work.

You are willing to accept the former as proof conclusive, but the latter is subject to interpretation and your desire to change the law in order to avoid what you view as unfair. I view the former, not the latter, as unfair. If we're going to change a law, how about making employers obligated for their employees' healthcare coverage?

Rather a double-standard here, don't you think?