 |
Re: $$ Cha-Ching $$ - maybe not
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 11-10-2015 - 10:45
> A story a while back, a set of baby machines were pumping out kids collecting welfare until
> they discovered the 100K policy and they encouraged their kids to "Play on the tracks"
The story sounds a bit apocryphal to me. Just where did you hear it? And even if you did hear it somewhere, just how in the hell could the authorities have actually determined all that - by what conceivable evidence. And if it wasn't the authorities that determined that - then who with any credibility did?
Second of all, the idea of welfare recipients as deliberate and fraudulent "Baby factories", is preposterous on its face; as the cost of taking care of babies far exceeds the extra stipend from the gov't. And always has. Moreover, as anyone who has had a loved one that needed help from the gov't (or needed it themselves) knows only too well; the gov't is an extremely picky and unreliable benefactor. In fact, to the point of gross dehumanizing obscenity!
Perhaps it would be a good idea to put assertions such a this story through a credible B.S. filter before shooting off one's mouth! The cause for "Tort Reform" is not helped one bit by such B.S.. That is really want you want isn't it? Or is it just to fling feces on the wall.
One could hope that Congress would act upon Tort Reform - AGAIN - and soon. It is easily justifiable to hold that when someone willfully disregards a commonly known dangerous situation, such as playing or walking on any roadway, railway, machine runway, etc; that they alone are responsible for the consequences.
It used to be that even if someone else negligently put the danger there, the doctrine of "Contributory Negligence" would negate the collecting of anything, by either party. But apparently, somewhere between my business law courses and now, when we weren't looking, that got changed. I wonder who did that!
But while I could see the current majority easily going for that reform, they would likely take it way too far (Just as "Deregulation" went way too far) Besides, the President would almost certainly veto it anyway, as has repeated happened before, when demos had the Whitehouse and repubs had the congress.
Yes! - If you really want things such as this to change, you're going to have to dramatically change how you vote!
> they discovered the 100K policy and they encouraged their kids to "Play on the tracks"
The story sounds a bit apocryphal to me. Just where did you hear it? And even if you did hear it somewhere, just how in the hell could the authorities have actually determined all that - by what conceivable evidence. And if it wasn't the authorities that determined that - then who with any credibility did?
Second of all, the idea of welfare recipients as deliberate and fraudulent "Baby factories", is preposterous on its face; as the cost of taking care of babies far exceeds the extra stipend from the gov't. And always has. Moreover, as anyone who has had a loved one that needed help from the gov't (or needed it themselves) knows only too well; the gov't is an extremely picky and unreliable benefactor. In fact, to the point of gross dehumanizing obscenity!
Perhaps it would be a good idea to put assertions such a this story through a credible B.S. filter before shooting off one's mouth! The cause for "Tort Reform" is not helped one bit by such B.S.. That is really want you want isn't it? Or is it just to fling feces on the wall.
One could hope that Congress would act upon Tort Reform - AGAIN - and soon. It is easily justifiable to hold that when someone willfully disregards a commonly known dangerous situation, such as playing or walking on any roadway, railway, machine runway, etc; that they alone are responsible for the consequences.
It used to be that even if someone else negligently put the danger there, the doctrine of "Contributory Negligence" would negate the collecting of anything, by either party. But apparently, somewhere between my business law courses and now, when we weren't looking, that got changed. I wonder who did that!
But while I could see the current majority easily going for that reform, they would likely take it way too far (Just as "Deregulation" went way too far) Besides, the President would almost certainly veto it anyway, as has repeated happened before, when demos had the Whitehouse and repubs had the congress.
Yes! - If you really want things such as this to change, you're going to have to dramatically change how you vote!
