If possible: Forced birth control for those on welfare to stop the next generation of poor

[MomentsofSanity]

I never mentioned birth control in the post your responding to. I actually agree that is a bad idea for the government to get involved in that.

Reproductive rights have been deemed a private matter protection by constitutional freedoms by SCOTUS. That’s the point I was responding to. No law shall impact those freedoms.

 

[SNC]

I think in the grand scheme of things you worry about all the wrong things. Just like the wealthy have programmed you to do.

So wait we are change the goal from a single topic to a the grand theme, please enlighten me as to how the wealthy have programed me?

 

[SNC]

Reproductive rights have been deemed a private matter protection by constitutional freedoms by SCOTUS. That’s the point I was responding to. No law shall impact those freedoms.

I agree with you, It was nowhere in my post you were responding to.

 

[Ken g6]

This led me to look up the US birth rate. It's below replacement level. So we don't need to be doing too much to lower it further.

That also led me to an interesting statistic. Enforcing child support laws is fairly effective as well.

 

[dank69]

So wait we are change the goal from a single topic to a the grand theme, please enlighten me as to how the wealthy have programed me?

You are told by your masters that the reason your life isn't better is because of all the illegals and all the poors and all the public servants sucking up your tax money and then while you are distracted by that they get their billion dollar tax cuts while giving you $85 a week for a year so you think it is a good thing we are back to a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[ivwshane]

So when you have nothing more to argue, you attack the messenger, how juvenile, I should not expect much more from the likes of you. Brother, pff. But no you have it wrong, we are both targeting stupid people, we just have a different definition of stupid. You think anyone who does not agree with you is stupid, I think that people that smoke, drive drunk, voted for Trump and those that have children with absolutely no fucking means be which to support them are stupid. Same coin just different sides.

I'm not sure why you think it's ok for you to define who is stupid and not me. Under my definition you get included because I have a wider net, a wider net means a larger savings. The whole point of this discussion is to be less of a drain on society, correct? How can you disagree with me when I want the same thing as you but my plan produces a larger savings?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I agree with you, It was nowhere in my post you were responding to.

It was in your post by suggesting welfare be tied to someone reproducing. That would violate the constitution. It’s a law that is intended to violate constitutionally protected freedoms.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Reproductive rights have been deemed a private matter protection by constitutional freedoms by SCOTUS. That’s the point I was responding to. No law shall impact those freedoms.

Then shouldn't the welfare laws need to be rewritten so that people only receive support for what they have discouraging them from adding to the taxpayer burden?

I'm not sure why you think it's ok for you to define who is stupid and not me. Under my definition you get included because I have a wider net, a wider net means a larger savings. The whole point of this discussion is to be less of a drain on society, correct? How can you disagree with me when I want the same thing as you but my plan produces a larger savings?

Because you resort to extreme verbal abuse upon those whom do not share your own views which demonstrates both a lack of character and education.

 

[SNC]

You are told by your masters that the reason your life isn't better is because of all the illegals and all the poors and all the public servants sucking up your tax money and then while you are distracted by that they get their billion dollar tax cuts while giving you $85 a week for a year so you think it is a good thing we are back to a trillion dollar deficit.

No sorry, wrong person. I know exactly why I am where I am, and it has nothing to do with any of the babble you posted above. Try again.

 

[dank69]

No sorry, wrong person. I know exactly why I am where I am, and it has nothing to do with any of the babble you posted above. Try again.

But you are worried about poor people getting government handouts.

 

[SNC]

I'm not sure why you think it's ok for you to define who is stupid and not me. Under my definition you get included because I have a wider net, a wider net means a larger savings. The whole point of this discussion is to be less of a drain on society, correct? How can you disagree with me when I want the same thing as you but my plan produces a larger savings?

I only differ in who not what. We are on the same page, just imagine if you include my group along with yours, the savings would be HUGE!! I will give you props for your skillful ducking of the questions I posed, done like a true seasons troll.

 

[SNC]

But you are worried about poor people getting government handouts.

Again, you must have the wrong person. Please quote where I sad poor people should not get help?

 

[SNC]

It was in your post by suggesting welfare be tied to someone reproducing. That would violate the constitution. It’s a law that is intended to violate constitutionally protected freedoms.

So my boss not giving me a raise when I have another kid is a constitutional violation? Because I cant really afford to put another kid through college, buy him a car and and home on my take home pay. Who do I speak with about this injustice?

 

[cytg111]

No no no no no no no no No no no no no no no no No no no no no no no no No no no no no no no no

What the hell.
Just think that thought through, roll forward society another 10, 20, 30 years. You want conservatives gerry mandering who gets to breed? Such an idea can only end badly, very badly, imagine all those falling off welfare then. What you think they're going to do, ever contribute to society again?
Start by identifying your problem, your real problem.
Your real problem is that those "unwanted babies" is not assets.
Can you turn them into assets?
Yes you can.
It is not an easy task though, it is the long game.
Easy thing would be to cut peoples nuts off.
The winning game would be to go about it smart.

Who the hell am i kidding, cut their balls off.

 

[ivwshane]

Then shouldn't the welfare laws need to be rewritten so that people only receive support for what they have discouraging them from adding to the taxpayer burden?

Because you resort to extreme verbal abuse upon those whom do not share your own views which demonstrates both a lack of character and education.

I mean shit looks like shit, right? Do you think what you are posting right now is a bastion of intellect and of high moral character? Lol

I'm just showing you the mirror.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So my boss not giving me a raise when I have another kid is a constitutional violation? Because I cant really afford to put another kid through college, buy him a car and and home on my take home pay. Who do I speak with about this injustice?

I don’t know. Does your boss represent the government and is he passing laws that violate the freedom of the population counter to constitutional interpretation? No? Then why make such a stupid analogy?

Why not make a free speech comparison that is irrelevant about your boss too while you’re at it?

 

[dank69]

Again, you must have the wrong person. Please quote where I sad poor people should not get help?

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not you acting incredulous while asking me if I support welfare no matter how many kids they pump out?

Interesting take. So you are ok for supporting the parents no matter how many they pump out? My life long friend had 24 brother and sisters, pretty much all on welfare today, as are their kids and grandkids. In total there are some 140 +/- people on the take just from his siblings, not a fucking one of them works above the table except for him. Are you saying that you are OK with no limits to the number of kids someone on welfare should be able to have?

Is this not you suggesting we not provide welfare to people who continue to reproduce?

OK so let's look at this from another direction because I actually agree that the government should not be incontrol of a person's right ( still looking for that line in my pocket constitution) to reproduce. IF you CHOOSE to reproduce you should not be able to collect welfare. How about now? Is it such a bad thing to say we are here to help you but if your gonna actively put yourself into a position where you will need up for the rest of your life, we choose to stop providing the means by which to do that?

 

[sandorski]

Economic position is not hereditary.

 

[ivwshane]

I only differ in who not what. We are on the same page, just imagine if you include my group along with yours, the savings would be HUGE!! I will give you props for your skillful ducking of the questions I posed, done like a true seasons troll.

I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer. My group already included your group, btw. The difference being, you get to be apart of the group of people you have such contempt for. Yeah for huge savings!!

 

[ivwshane]

Economic position is not hereditary.

Really? Because my gut says it is and my gut never lies!



/s

 

[ivwshane]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not you acting incredulous while asking me if I support welfare no matter how many kids they pump out?



Is this not you suggesting we not provide welfare to people who continue to reproduce?

Sometimes even rubbing peoples faces in their own shit isn't enough for them to see how disgusting they are.

 

[IronWing]

Economic position is not hereditary.

Given the current Republican agenda, it will be again.

 

[SNC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not you acting incredulous while asking me if I support welfare no matter how many kids they pump out?



Is this not you suggesting we not provide welfare to people who continue to reproduce?

Where does any of what you quoted mention poor people as a single reason for my stand. I think that you are missing what I'm typing, poor people who continue to do things to limit the possibility to get out of where they are. You guys continue to ignore that huge part of the argument and attempt to change what I'm typing. WHEN do you say enough is enough? Is a person having kids for the sole purpose of staying on welfare OK with you?

 

[SNC]

I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer. My group already included your group, btw. The difference being, you get to be apart of the group of people you have such contempt for. Yeah for huge savings!!

You answered the question you thought in your mind I asked. Big difference.

 

[SNC]

Sometimes even rubbing peoples faces in their own shit isn't enough for them to see how disgusting they are.

OK so do you have a line at which you would intervene, 5, 10, 20 kids? You can type all the fuzzy feel feel good shit you like but there needs to be an honest conversation about this and just disagreeing is not good enough. So again I ask where do YOU draw the line?