From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 13:37:33 MDT
The DINKS and others need to be free to develop their own retirement accounts,
rather than having their wealth siphoned off by the welfare state. If they do
this, they won't need much of a next generation to pay for their retirement.
A criminal in prison, depending on the location, costs from $30,000.00 to
$60,000.00 a year to house. A person on welfare makes between $14,000.00 to
$35,000.00, again depending on location, dependents, etc.. counting the 50%
bureaucratic overhead on that welfare tab, you are talking about a $28k to $70k
overall cost per year to keep someone on welfare. Many of the state sponsored
'workfare' programs are similarly expensive, typically such programs spend a
minimum of $100,000.00 for every low level job they place a welfare recipient
in. Part of that is subsidies to the employer, part overhead, etc.
Abortion in the US, by a large margin, has become not a means by which a low
income single woman can end a pregnancy to prevent bring a child into a poor
life (though that is still present), it is mostly a method by which well-off or
well to do middle and upper class women can eliminate any possible drag on their
careers and upwardly mobile lifestyle. Look up the numbers for yourself. Middle
and upper class single women abort more frequently per capita than poor women.
Here's a link on abortion opinions by class:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_graph.cfm?issue_type=abortion&id=428&graph=nd3.gif
While heres an indication that the reasons women have for abortion have nothing
to do with the health of the mother or baby, or that they were victims of rape:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=17
although this one does say that 68% of women state that they 'can't afford a
baby right now', they don't explain what that means, whether its truly an income
thing, or whether they can't afford the impact it will have on their careers...
"Emlyn (pentacle)" wrote:
> Maybe you can look at welfare this way:
>
> Givens:
> - There is always going to be a segment of the population which is "dead
> weight", ie not able to support itself. This seems a fairly reasonable given
> to me, but if you don't agree, speak up!
>
> - Those unable to support themselves can either be supported by someone
> else, or must turn to the black economy (and crime). (or die I guess, but
> not too many are going for this one out of choice).
>
> - Crime costs more than the welfare bill. (is this true?)
>
> Now the libertarian objects to paying tax for welfare. But surely, the
> agregate level of crime inflicted per person must be at least as invasive of
> rights as welfare.
>
> So the most violating of "good" citizens (hee hee) rights is crime, followed
> by paying tax for welfare. Maybe the unsupported citizen should be
> identified and "terminated" (ouch), but by whom? How do you seperate such a
> person (known as "dole bludgers" in the local rags), from those who are
> temporarily down on their luck, but truly trying to "do the right thing"
> (ooh I'm feeling all protestant all of a sudden).
>
> The point is, you can't make such a decision. Welfare is the least
> detrimental of all available options to each individual's rights, and thus
> should be decided upon from an individualist point of view.
>
> ---
>
> There's been some comment about not letting those who can't afford to have
> babies to do so. Maybe you guys in the US don't have the aging population
> problem that we do in Australia. Over here, people say the same things...
> - We don't want No Stinkin Welfare mums ("moms" in American),
> - We don't want No Stinkin immigration,
> - We don't got no Stinkin Workers to support the baby boomers in
> retirement
>
> It's a no brainer. Having kids is not a luxury in the west, it's a
> necessity, from a social viewpoint. That, or increased immigration of
> younguns (those third-world types still know how its done!). Australia
> rewards the DINKS (double income no kids) for their hassle free lifestyle by
> not requiring them to have any responsibility for raising the next
> generation, apart from throwing the same few sheckles to the govt that the
> parents have to throw. It's crazy really; we all need the coming
> generations, but damned if anyone is willing to pay.
>
> Oddly enough, many of the same people who don't want to foot this bill seem
> to be those who aren't too interested in immigrants. White people are going
> to turn up in history books (databases, yeah yeah) as curiosities; stomped
> all over the globe, made everyone else's lives hell, then just when they
> looked like a real problem, they just stopped procreating. Couldn't be
> bothered.
>
> Maybe instead of getting cranky with those poor people who breed all over
> the place, we could educate their kids. For purely selfish reasons.
>
> Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:07 MST
