Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I'll throw you a bone even though you haven't backed up yours...

I haven't backed up which statement? That I used to play Baby Roulette in my working class days?

 

[ShannonCT]

I haven't backed up which statement?

That kids born in bad circumstances are a benefit to the economy.

That I used to play Baby Roulette in my working class days?

I think we're going to need some pictures.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'll throw you a bone even though you haven't backed up yours...

From the Brookings Institution, on restrictions on government assistance faced by non-citizens: http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/pb15.htm

So if I understand you correctly, you want to incenticize a certain class of Americans not to breed so that we can replace the children they would have had with immigrants?

 

[Murky]

That kids born in bad circumstances are a benefit to the economy.

What about the countless stores of people lifting themselves out of poverty and achieving great success? I know a lot of hard-working poor people but very few hard-working rich people. The theory goes something like; when you have to be creative and hard-working in order to survive you are more likely to contribute positively to society.

 

[ShannonCT]

So if I understand you correctly, you want to incenticize a certain class of Americans not to breed...

Nope, just to delay breeding until a time when getting stuck with a kid isn't going to harm their chances of getting out of poverty.

...so that we can replace the children they would have had with immigrants?

We're going to need immigrants either way. Most American citizens don't want to take the low-paying jobs that immigrants are doing.

What about the countless stores of people lifting themselves out of poverty and achieving great success?

I'm all for that! The more ways we can support people in getting off of Welfare, the more rags-to-riches stories we'll have.

I know a lot of hard-working poor people but very few hard-working rich people. The theory goes something like; when you have to be creative and hard-working in order to survive you are more likely to contribute positively to society.

Sure. There are plenty of working-class people that make great contributions to society. I'd like to see more people get out of the idling-class, and into the working-class, and the middle-class. But that's really hard to do when you get stuck with a baby you weren't expecting while being out of work. I don't think we're in disagreement here.

 

[Murky]

Sure. There are plenty of working-class people that make great contributions to society. I'd like to see more people get out of the idling-class, and into the working-class, and the middle-class. But that's really hard to do when you get stuck with a baby you weren't expecting while being out of work. I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I think being a full-time parent could be considered a job. If a person a single parent and daycare is unavailable then we might consider that person as being a full-time parent. Many non-productive adults are the result of neglect or abuse.

 

[JollyRoger]

Nope, just to delay breeding until a time when getting stuck with a kid isn't going to harm their chances of getting out of poverty.

Don't you think that someone who has a child is more likely to push harder to get out of poverty than someone without a child?

We're going to need immigrants either way. Most American citizens don't want to take the low-paying jobs that immigrants are doing.

But your proposed policy leans to a heavier immigration mix than necesary.

 

[ShannonCT]

I think being a full-time parent could be considered a job. If a person a single parent and daycare is unavailable then we might consider that person as being a full-time parent. Many non-productive adults are the result of neglect or abuse.

That only works for people who have a permanent means of support, like a spouse. Full-blown Welfare is only temporary. Eventually, a single parent is going to have to get a job or find someone to support him/her and any kids. I don't think we want to make Welfare a life-long option. Besides, most people work hours that overlap with their kids' school hours. Having a full-time job doesn't cause child neglect.

 

[Bast]

This is a good idea and should apply to the Third World too.

 

[Bast]

Actually I would only be in favour of this in Third World countries where infant mortality rates are high and there's war and disease.

I wouldn't be in favour of this in say US and Australia or European countries where birth rates are already low.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't have a child while in law school, but it would have been even more fun if I knew everybody was either rich or on forced birth control.

Having a child has nothing to do with it. Gov aid is gov aid. I take it by your not answering my question that yes, indeed, you were a recipiant of that so called government aid to help pay for your education.

Odd how you would be so virulent on one hand towards those receiving such aid, all the while having your own hand out.

 

[JollyRoger]

Having a child has nothing to do with it. Gov aid is gov aid. I take it by your not answering my question that yes, indeed, you were a recipiant of that so called government aid to help pay for your education.

Odd how you would be so virulent on one hand towards those receiving such aid, all the while having your own hand out.

Congrats - 100+ posts deep in this thread and you are getting my point - everybody gets government aid to some extent - so the breeder/drug test proposals seem hilariously over the top. If you are mistaking my sarcastic points for virulance, then I can't really help you - except to keep paying taxes from my high bracket so that the military budget stays comfortably fat.

 

[MobBoss]

Congrats - 100+ posts deep in this thread and you are getting my point - everybody gets government aid to some extent - so the breeder/drug test proposals seem hilariously over the top. If you are mistaking my sarcastic points for virulance, then I can't really help you - except to keep paying taxes from my high bracket so that the military budget stays comfortably fat.

Well, I agree that we all get government aid in some form one way or another; however, as you so accurately point out, we also contribute right back to our society in our productivity.

People on welfare dont contribute anything. There is simply no incentive to not take the government check. The gov would be well served to get completely out of such a corrupt wealth distribution scam and let organizations like the United Way (or shocker...the churches) fill the needs of people who have no desire to get off their butts aside from cashing a gov check.

BUT, if the bleeding hearts simply insist that we pander to the unproductive, then why not have them at least prove they are not on drugs? I fail to see any downside to that.

 

[JollyRoger]

BUT, if the bleeding hearts simply insist that we pander to the unproductive, then why not have them at least prove they are not on drugs? I fail to see any downside to that.

What happens with a positive drug test? Do you propose just cutting off the check, incarceration, or a determination if the person could use some help with addiction?

I am with you that if the government is doling out money, that there are strings that should be attached - I got a subsidized loan and then had to find a suitable job to pay it back, you work for your government paycheck, corporations usually have to do something to earn their breaks and subsidies - but if the government is going to have a welfare system, it is not doing anyone any favors by not doing it wisely.

I think the OP suggestion of forced birth control is dangerous to long-term U.S. interests. Your drug test proposal is more realistic - I assume you are expected to stay drug free to keep your job and there is a chance that you could be tested - so maybe it isn't unfair to expect a drug test from a welfare recipient.

But we both know that there are going to be a lot of failures and I guess the question becomes - what do we do with those failures? If welfare was left to the charities, do you think the churches would drug test and if they did, what would be the result of a positive drug test?

 

[MobBoss]

I would suggest if a welfare recipiant be found positive for drugs that their participation in the welfare program end - abruptly. I certainly dont think it too much to ask that welfare participants remain drug free.

And you are 100% correct that as a government employee I routinely have to pee in a cup and be tested. Thus I dont see the process as onerous at all.

I totally agree that there should be strings attached to such programs. However, welfare is one such program that has no strings attached and as a result has become the abused and corrupt system it is today.

As for the charities and churches....its entirely up to them how they would want to run such programs - they already do to a large degree.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would suggest if a welfare recipiant be found positive for drugs that their participation in the welfare program end - abruptly.

What if the person that tests positive has children? Do you suggest that the government find them another suitable home or do they have to suffer the abrupt cut-off also?

And at the start of the program, a large number of people would be cut off abruptly, thus likely causing a spike in crime in low-income neighborhoods and the working stiffs living there and playing by the rules would end up the primary victims - do you propose increased police protection for these working poor, because many of them are doing the best they realistically can while playing by the rules.

 

[MobBoss]

What if the person that tests positive has children?

Do you think someone on welfare doing drugs is a good parent? Do you think that fair to the kids? If they dont care enough about themselves or their kids to stay off drugs then perhaps the kids belong in a foster home.

Do you suggest that the government find them another suitable home or do they have to suffer the abrupt cut-off also?

Answered above.

And at the start of the program, a large number of people would be cut off abruptly, thus likely causing a spike in crime in low-income neighborhoods and the working stiffs living there and playing by the rules would end up the primary victims - do you propose increased police protection for these working poor, because many of them are doing the best they realistically can while playing by the rules.

That is a pretty large assumption on your part. Another assumption could be that the former welfare-ites actually get a job and start being productive.

 

[JollyRoger]

That is a pretty large assumption on your part. Another assumption could be that the former welfare-ites actually get a job and start being productive.

I would think in the short-term that my assumption is more realistic than yours (we are dealing with a segment of the population that has demonstrated a willingness to break the law and now they have no income). With a drop in income in the neighborhood (due to a significant portion of the population now off the welfare dole), the economy of the neighborhood would suffer and there would be even less local jobs to go around.

As for the children, to you think there is enough foster care infrastructure in place to handle a relatively large influx of children?

 

[MobBoss]

I would think in the short-term that my assumption is more realistic than yours. With a drop in income in the neighborhood (due to a significant portion of the population now off the welfare dole), the economy of the neighborhood would suffer and there would be even less local jobs to go around.

Current unemployment figures are at 4.5%. There are jobs out there for people who want to work.

As for the children, to you think there is enough foster care infrastructure in place to handle a relatively large influx of children?

Do you think leaving them in the care of a drug-using welfare parent a better alternative?

 

[JollyRoger]

Current unemployment figures are at 4.5%. There are jobs out there for people who want to work.

We are dealing with people in that 4.5%, many who likely have the skill & experience set that limits them initially to the minimum wage jobs in the neighborhood. The business at the local Burger King will go down with a drop in welfare payouts, so they will likely be cutting back instead of hiring.

Do you think leaving them in the care of a drug-using welfare parent a better alternative?

No, but you have to have the foster care infrastructure in place if you enact your proposal. My question is if you think that infrastructure is realistically in place.