Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[skadistic]

It seems quite clear from this statement who you blame for those who have children whilst on welfare. Can I ask, playing devil's advocate with a view I know others hold, why are you against families?

Show me where I said I was against families. I didn't. If your going to play DA atleast play against the words I said.

In the case of single mothers isn't it better that they do stay at home to bring the child up rather than palm them off onto someone else to go to work?

Its better that this mother provide for her self and her kids and make me do it for her. How many times can I say that its not my kid. Its not my respouncability. I shouldn't be forced to pay for the poor life choices of others.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Show me where I said I was against families. I didn't. If your going to play DA atleast play against the words I said.

First off, calm down.

As I saying, I was playing devil's advocate. You didn't say that you were against families but there are those who will consider the parting of a mother from her child to be such.

I was merely asking what you thought was more important; that a mother raise her child or that she work to pay for her child. That is all. To me, this issue raises questions in conservative thinking and I was merely asking what your view was.

Its better that this mother provide for her self and her kids and make me do it for her. How many times can I say that its not my kid. Its not my respouncability. I shouldn't be forced to pay for the poor life choices of others.

It's not my responsibility to stop people from comitting crime either but I pay for the police force. Living in society means that you have to accept that some people are dipsticks and we need to find a way of minimising their impact. The "injection idea" is a way to do that but in my view it is a step too far.

 

[CartesianFart]

Is this plan humane? Is it eugenics? Is it racist? Vote!

I find it unecessary due to the fact that we need more impoverish citizens for our future wars and to fill up our mental wards and prisons!

Tell me,do many people with lots of money go to military service?

 

[JerichoHill]

I assume that you mean that such a policy would not produce positive economic outcomes. Fair enough.

Exactly. And in addition, we lose personal freedom. Unequivocally a bad idea, and ultimately unenforceable

 

[batteryacid]

Wow. Welcome to the twilight zone of improper thinking !

Did you ever think why the government pays child benefits?
It is because they will pay in future for your pensions and will produce GPD and pay taxes.

So opposing child benefits and implementing such absurd things like birth control for people receiving money from the government will consequently lead in working til you´re 80 or dead because the pension system breaks down.

And who tells you that those people can´t raise children? It´s more likely that parents which work a lot and thus have no time for their children have worse impact than parents being at home with their kids and receiving money from the state.

 

[EugenB]

This plan is a fairly decent idea, a first small step from stopping humanity breeding stupidly like animals, when we have long past the need to make children in order to survive.
I think its time to overcome our reproductive instincts, if we want to be more than a cloud of devouring locusts, that will devour all the resources and die of starvation afterwards. But i guess we will not ever reach this stage of understanding, sadly...
The politicians and priests will continue to indoctrinate us, cose they will need fresh new generations of green stupid slaves, the more the better...

 

[CartesianFart]

This plan is a fairly decent idea, a first small step from stopping humanity breeding stupidly like animals, when we have long past the need to make children in order to survive.
I think its time to overcome our reproductive instincts, if we want to be more than a cloud of devouring locusts, that will devour all the resources and die of starvation afterwards. But i guess we will not ever reach this stage of understanding, sadly...

I do agree with you on this.That is why i am always dreaming of the possibility of someday that reproduction will cease to exist and we can carefully and meticulously plan to bring babies up from state-controlled nurseries and some high-tech embryonic chambers.

The politicians and priests will continue to indoctrinate us, cose they will need fresh new generations of green stupid slaves, the more the better...

We do need some kind of elite in any form of government whether they are priest or politicians.Hopefully we can have the "technocrats" to replace these political animals of the past and let the best of the best rule instead;which is the right person to rule in whatever given position in the oligarcy of technicians.

 

[ShannonCT]

Wow. Welcome to the twilight zone of improper thinking !

Did you ever think why the government pays child benefits?
It is because they will pay in future for your pensions and will produce GPD and pay taxes.

So opposing child benefits and implementing such absurd things like birth control for people receiving money from the government will consequently lead in working til you´re 80 or dead because the pension system breaks down.

But you must realize that there are a significant number of individuals that receive more in direct transfer payments from the government (Welfare, food stamps, tax credits) than they pay in taxes. These people aren't supporting the pension system. If we have humane ways of reducing the number of people who take more from the system than they put in, using those methods would improve the outlook of the pension system. In the US, the pension system's outlook is so bleak, that as a twenty-something, I have little hope of collecting a government pension before I die. Better to allow more immigrants than to have more children locally born into poverty.

And who tells you that those people can´t raise children? It´s more likely that parents which work a lot and thus have no time for their children have worse impact than parents being at home with their kids and receiving money from the state.

Everything else being equal, it's probably better for a child that a parent stays home and spends more time with him/her. But everything is not equal when we're talking about single moms on government assistance. Being born into poverty means a greater chance of being fatherless, living in a high-crime area, going to a failing school, being a victim of violent crime, being incarcerated, receiving poor medical care, etc... There are too many negative consequences of poverty for some potential extra quality time with mom to overcome. For typical middle class parents working 40-50 hours per week (most while the kids are in school anyway), there is plenty of time left in the week for effective parenting.

 

[El_Machinae]

Shannon, you might get a more freedom-oriented system if you offered to pay certain people to go onto birth-control. It's similar to what Singapore does. While it's still intrusive, it's less so.

 

[MobBoss]

Havent read the entire thread, so if this has been brought up I apologize.

I am not so much in favor of forced birth control as I am of mandatory drug testing for those on welfare. If our tax dollars are going to be paid to individuals then let them pee in a cup to make sure they are not spending it on drugs.

 

[CartesianFart]

If our tax dollars are going to be paid to individuals then let them pee in a cup to make sure they are not spending it on drugs.

There is a truth to this.I should know since i see alot of people who are abusing this priveledge that the public seems to ignore.

 

[JollyRoger]

Havent read the entire thread, so if this has been brought up I apologize.

I am not so much in favor of forced birth control as I am of mandatory drug testing for those on welfare. If our tax dollars are going to be paid to individuals then let them pee in a cup to make sure they are not spending it on drugs.

Does that go for Coprorate CEO's who's companies are taking government subsidies? There are many who would flunk that test.

 

[MobBoss]

Does that go for Coprorate CEO's who's companies are taking government subsidies? There are many who would flunk that test.

People that are completely on the dole from the government is the obvious demographic. Corporations getting tax subsides wouldnt make sense. How would you make a corporation pee in a cup?

 

[ShannonCT]

Shannon, you might get a more freedom-oriented system if you offered to pay certain people to go onto birth-control. It's similar to what Singapore does. While it's still intrusive, it's less so.

I think that is exactly what my plan does: pays people to go onto birth-control. This policy is completely voluntary. For most people on welfare, the choice is not: take welfare or starve. It's take welfare or take a low skill job (or jobs) and work a lot of hours and/or reduce your standard of living. For people truly incapable of working, like people who are mentally ill or physically incapacitated, allowing them to bring children into the world seems very cruel to the children.

Havent read the entire thread, so if this has been brought up I apologize.

I am not so much in favor of forced birth control as I am of mandatory drug testing for those on welfare. If our tax dollars are going to be paid to individuals then let them pee in a cup to make sure they are not spending it on drugs.

Yes, I briefly proposed mandatory drug addiction treatment and mandatory job training or adult education for welfare recipients. If the state wants to help people, they should really help them and not just pay them to survive.

People that are completely on the dole from the government is the obvious demographic. Corporations getting tax subsides wouldnt make sense. How would you make a corporation pee in a cup?

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that Jolly doesn't recognize a corporation and its CEO as separate entities.

 

[JollyRoger]

People that are completely on the dole from the government is the obvious demographic. Corporations getting tax subsides wouldnt make sense. How would you make a corporation pee in a cup?

Corporate representatives in the form of the Board of Directors and high ranking executives can pee in a cup. I can't believe that you want to give these billion dollar welfare queens a pass.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Havent read the entire thread, so if this has been brought up I apologize.

I am not so much in favor of forced birth control as I am of mandatory drug testing for those on welfare. If our tax dollars are going to be paid to individuals then let them pee in a cup to make sure they are not spending it on drugs.

That, and I want the people on the welfare system to be actively seeking a job. Don't make welfare an endless supply of money, put strict limits on it. I'm not talking about filling out 2 applications a week. I mean out on the street looking for a job, looking through the job sites online, the local job listings, etc. I started looking for a job, and within 3 weeks I found one and got hired (and I barely tried). It's not the best paying, but I have older coworkers that live off of it.

It's not that hard to find a job. If you aren't out looking for a job (basically sitting on your ass and watching TV) and you're collecting welfare, you should be arrested for some sort of crime. There are some circumstances where there could be some leeway (i.e. handicapped in some way, and that should be confirmed by a doctor, and being fat is not a handicap).

 

[MobBoss]

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that Jolly doesn't recognize a corporation and its CEO as separate entities.

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

 

[MobBoss]

Corporate representatives in the form of the Board of Directors and high ranking executives can pee in a cup. I can't believe that you want to give these billion dollar welfare queens a pass.

They arent billion dollar welfare queens. Your just being jealous of them being wealthy.

Bottom line, tax breaks to such corporations are good because they employ people and pay their wages. That keeps the economy moving. Dont like CEOs making a lot of money? Dont invest in corps that overpay their CEOs.

But to alleage the Gov is paying the CEOs welfare is incorrect and misleading.

 

[JollyRoger]

They arent billion dollar welfare queens. Your just being jealous of them being wealthy.

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.

Bottom line, tax breaks to such corporations are good because they employ people and pay their wages. That keeps the economy moving.

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

Dont like CEOs making a lot of money? Dont invest in corps that overpay their CEOs.

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?

But to alleage the Gov is paying the CEOs welfare is incorrect and misleading.

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

 

[Elrohir]

No, this is a horrible idea, and arbitrarily takes away a great deal of what it means to be human.

And in addition, it incorrectly assumes that government assistanc equates to poverty, or that those who do not receive government assistance are in fact better mothers and fathers.

For shame.

(Note: This has NOTHING to do with economics, but warped conservatism...)

I dunno, I think it's more of a liberal idea. (Liberal in the American, not classical European sense) Conservatives are generally against government intervention, while this is a major governmental intrusion. Liberals, on the other hand, are generally for the government changing society and taking a hand in running peoples lives in order to help them. (Supposedly, anyway)