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

[ivwshane]

Okay, in a rational way tell me how it is beneficial to someone on welfare to have a child, or another child, or multiple children, instead of making their life harder and more difficult to overcome and get off of welfare? That doesn't sound like we are helping these people. And why should tax payers allow someone to be irresponsible like that and make their life situation even worse than it already is, thus harder to ever overcome getting off of welfare. Overall i'm not too worried about the actual money aspect of any of this. I'm more wondering how you think that is an ok behavior to enable. I mean money is a factor, but allowing this behavior is more important to me. So show me how their lives are better for having children while in welfare.

And leave all the eugenics and/or sterilization bullshit bogeymen out of your reply. No one is suggesting any of those things. Birth control is very cheap vs. feeding another mouth and all that comes along with having a child.

Until you can answer this in a rational way ill continue to think you are not worthy of discussing this topic.

Sorry no. You made the claims now back them up.

 

[ivwshane]

thx.
"The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits."

again, stop paying the top 10 procedures during the last 6 months of life will cut down on that excess.
but that's a different thread.
lets keep on topic for this thread

I thought this thread was about being economically smart by removing benefits from those who are a drain in society? Are you telling me there are more welfare beneficiaries receiving more in benefits than the net gain by Medicare recipients? Lets see the data!

 

[IronWing]

thx.
"The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits."

again, stop paying the top 10 procedures during the last 6 months of life will cut down on that excess.
but that's a different thread.
lets keep on topic for this thread

Here, we may find more common ground.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

OP, I'm not seeing how this saves money. Think about how many people are on welfare, now imagine the cost to have every single one of them given a shot once a month. Not just the cost of the shot itself, but storing and administering that many shots. How on earth would this pay for itself? How many welfare queens do you think exist?

 

[soulcougher73]

Sorry no. You made the claims now back them up.

Actually you were in this thread before i was. You back yours up.

 

[dainthomas]

Okay, in a rational way tell me how it is beneficial to someone on welfare to have a child, or another child, or multiple children, instead of making their life harder and more difficult to overcome and get off of welfare? That doesn't sound like we are helping these people. And why should tax payers allow someone to be irresponsible like that and make their life situation even worse than it already is, thus harder to ever overcome getting off of welfare. Overall i'm not too worried about the actual money aspect of any of this. I'm more wondering how you think that is an ok behavior to enable. I mean money is a factor, but allowing this behavior is more important to me. So show me how their lives are better for having children while in welfare.

And leave all the eugenics and/or sterilization bullshit bogeymen out of your reply. No one is suggesting any of those things. Birth control is very cheap vs. feeding another mouth and all that comes along with having a child.

Until you can answer this in a rational way ill continue to think you are not worthy of discussing this topic.

Every time you receive a government benefit, a bureaucrat should be allowed to comb through your entire lifestyle to ensure you're making good, responsible, government-approved choices.

 

[soulcougher73]

Every time you receive a government benefit, a bureaucrat should be allowed to comb through your entire lifestyle to ensure you're making good, responsible, government-approved choices.

And? Don't want them in your life then maybe stay the hell off government benefits? You guys are silly with your weak ass reasoning about why people should be able to do as they please on the tax payers dime.

 

[Amused]

So I say absolutely not.

No. No way. The right to control one's body is the most basic of human rights.

Meanwhile, welfare is NOT a problem. It's less than 2% of the budget yet garners 95% of the talk about budget cuts.

 

[dainthomas]

And? Don't want them in your life then maybe stay the hell off government benefits? You guys are silly with your weak ass reasoning about why people should be able to do as they please on the tax payers dime.

Would you like any type of corporate subsidy, government grant or tax credit? Please prove to the government you're not spending your money in unapproved, inefficient ways (like on children).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

it's not sterilization.
birth control 1 month at a time till you get off the govt safety net/hammock

You evidently haven't thought this through. How will you prevent them from gaming the system? At best you will insert a hurdle to be cleared, at worst, it will cost far more with no perceptible impact on what you see as a serious problem. You would need to set a significant time period before they could discontinue the BC, after the assistance stops. Otherwise they will only get off long enough to conceive again, rinse and repeat. How long would be long enough to provide a net benefit to society? Undoubtedly, the next step would be ceasing assistance for more than a child or two. That slope pitches to an angle where footing is quickly lost in a big damned hurry.

OTOH, you have found a virtually powerless group upon which to focus your hate. Hell, you might even be able to successfully attack them. That should make you feel a little less miserable for a minute or two. Trying to get at the banks and administration that wasted trillions of tax dollars would get you nowhere, but maybe you can get a few dollars back by eliminating the poor. Your god is disappoint.

 

[Commodus]

no, you're voluntarily giving up that right if you accept govt aid.
want free $? there's strings attached.

just liked there are currently strings attached for using food stamps.
ie: cant buy alcohol or guns with it
but 2nd amendment...

You're going beyond the pale when you tell someone they're not allowed to breed.

And aside from this leading to government control over your own body, there are all kinds of additional ethical and technical problems. For instance, will the government then guarantee free birth control, since this would otherwise amount to an effective ban on sex? And since no birth control short of surgery is guaranteed to work, will the government insist on easy, free (or low-cost) abortions and morning-after pills so that people don't risk starving because a condom broke? What if someone is on government aid because they can't work -- are they legally required to die childless?

You see the problem here? Even if banning welfare recipients from having children weren't a horror in itself, a vaguely humane implementation would require policies that the current American right wing would oppose at every turn. Yes, there are people who aren't responsible and have kids they can't afford to raise, but I would much rather have that than a dystopia where all welfare recipients are barred from even thinking about sex unless (not necessarily until) they can find jobs.

 

[Puffnstuff]

with ZERO strings attached

Now that's the way I like bikini's.

 

[cytg111]

How about a 100% taxation on billionaires if they dont trickle down? Its just wrong to not trickle down when you got that many kids...eeereh.. billions in the bank!

 

[soulcougher73]

You're going beyond the pale when you tell someone they're not allowed to breed.

And aside from this leading to government control over your own body, there are all kinds of additional ethical and technical problems. For instance, will the government then guarantee free birth control, since this would otherwise amount to an effective ban on sex? And since no birth control short of surgery is guaranteed to work, will the government insist on easy, free (or low-cost) abortions and morning-after pills so that people don't risk starving because a condom broke? What if someone is on government aid because they can't work -- are they legally required to die childless?

You see the problem here? Even if banning welfare recipients from having children weren't a horror in itself, a vaguely humane implementation would require policies that the current American right wing would oppose at every turn. Yes, there are people who aren't responsible and have kids they can't afford to raise, but I would much rather have that than a dystopia where all welfare recipients are barred from even thinking about sex unless (not necessarily until) they can find jobs.

You'd have to use some form of form of BC that lasts awhile. Nothing preventing you from having sex, just no breeding while on gov. assistance. You want babies? Earn your keep and be a productive member of society that can afford to raise a child on their own. Allowing people on gov. assistance to breed without consequences will not end well for tax payers. People are like compound interest, our population will grow faster and faster and time goes on, only making it a worse situation on everyone, including the people you think you are helping by enabling them. Seems like most people here are not looking ahead to the future, but thinking in the now.

And again. None of the is permanent. Only temporary while on gov. assistance, unless you decide to make your life that way.

 

[SNC]

You'll have to work on your English if you want people to understand what it is you are trying to communicate. I can help though. Do you need me to explain what a fact is? What about a citation?

Ahh so first hand knowledge is irrelevant, you prefer information from people who have never even set foot in a housing plan or area where 90% of the money people have come from the government, got it.

 

[Mandres]

You'd have to use some form of form of BC that lasts awhile. Nothing preventing you from having sex, just no breeding while on gov. assistance. You want babies? Earn your keep and be a productive member of society that can afford to raise a child on their own. Allowing people on gov. assistance to breed without consequences will not end well for tax payers. People are like compound interest, our population will grow faster and faster and time goes on, only making it a worse situation on everyone, including the people you think you are helping by enabling them. Seems like most people here are not looking ahead to the future, but thinking in the now.

And again. None of the is permanent. Only temporary while on gov. assistance, unless you decide to make your life that way.

yes, we know... you keep repeating the tenets of this horrible plan as if we don't understand what you're saying. We understand. It's been explained over and over again why this is terrible policy - from legal, moral, and financial standpoints - but you keep repeating it like an autistic parrot. Discuss or stfu ...

 

[soulcougher73]

yes, we know... you keep repeating the tenets of this horrible plan as if we don't understand what you're saying. We understand. It's been explained over and over again why this is terrible policy - from legal, moral, and financial standpoints - but you keep repeating it like an autistic parrot. Discuss or stfu ...

It's actually your side that hasn't said shit other than, oh it's a bad idea. No reasoning why what we allow now is better than what we're discussing. All your side has done is sling insults for no reason.

 

[feralkid]

You don't have to provide me with an article from someone who has never even seen the inside of a housing plan let alone slept under the steps in cold weather and ate the food the people living there wouldn't. I lived with queens, I slept with them, I grew up with them, I still know some of them still today. You have no idea unless you actually lived it. I spent a little over 5 years living out of dumpsters and sleeping in flop houses and on couches when there was one open. There is not a fucking thing I am going to learn out of a newspaper article, that I didn't live myself. You guys may prefer to believe what some college graduate thinks he knows and writes an article over someone who actually lived it, but that does not change what I witnessed. I would be interested in knowing how many people you guys know who are on welfare and live in public housing, I'm gonna guess somewhere close to zero.

So you would never have been conceived had the government done what you are advocating.

The duality of humanity never ceases to amaze me.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

It's actually your side that hasn't said shit other than, oh it's a bad idea. No reasoning why what we allow now is better than what we're discussing. All your side has done is sling insults for no reason.

Hm? Multiple have been presented. I can think of multiple reasons it's bad off the top of my head:

1) Costs will far outweigh saving from keeping welfare queens from having umpenteen kids. Really, think about how many people are on welfare, and now think of the costs to give them all a shot every month. Not just the cost of the shot itself, but the cost to store and administer it. This will end the same way as Florida's drug testing. It'll cost more money than it saves.
2) It's easily exploitable. All someone needs to do is get off it for a month, get knocked up and get back on it. There's nothing stopping someone from having a bunch more kids if they just hop off it every so often. Heck, there's nothing stopping people from abusing this program the other way to get free birth control.
3) There are so many better ways! Cap the amount given, provide alternatives to money (vouchers for diapers, etc), go after child support more aggressively, etc. None of them as easily exploitable or silly as this.

 

[Jaskalas]

Meanwhile, welfare is NOT a problem. It's less than 2% of the budget

If you count healthcare, my policy would turn that into 80% of the budget. Granted, the budget would be 75% bigger.

 

[soulcougher73]

Hm? Multiple have been presented. I can think of multiple reasons it's bad off the top of my head:

1) Costs will far outweigh saving from keeping welfare queens from having umpenteen kids. Really, think about how many people are on welfare, and now think of the costs to give them all a shot every month. Not just the cost of the shot itself, but the cost to store and administer it. This will end the same way as Florida's drug testing. It'll cost more money than it saves.
2) It's easily exploitable. All someone needs to do is get off it for a month, get knocked up and get back on it. There's nothing stopping someone from having a bunch more kids if they just hop off it every so often. Heck, there's nothing stopping people from abusing this program the other way to get free birth control.
3) There are so many better ways! Cap the amount given, provide alternatives to money (vouchers for diapers, etc), go after child support more aggressively, etc. None of them as easily exploitable or silly as this.

1) I'll give you the cost and administering it would cost more money most likely. But that is not a given either with how much money might be saved by steaming breeding while on welfare. But i said earlier the money wasn't really the main goal of what i was getting at anyways. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing to help people even if it costs a bit more. Subjective i know.
2) Make the money dependent on getting the shot? Get your shot, get your money?
3) None of those ways sounds all that great or easy to accomplish either on such a wide scale as this. They probably sound better from a moral stand point for sure for most people, but morality is subjective.

Thanks for the reply. At least it was laden with insults and no substance like most of the liberal posters here. Coming from a social liberal

 

[soulcougher73]

So you would never have been conceived had the government done what you are advocating.

The duality of humanity never ceases to amaze me.

He would never know he wasnt conceived so no loss for him

 

[ivwshane]

Ahh so first hand knowledge is irrelevant, you prefer information from people who have never even set foot in a housing plan or area where 90% of the money people have come from the government, got it.

Then it should trivial for to actually provide data.

Still waiting.

 

[Mandres]

1) I'll give you the cost and administering it would cost more money most likely. But that is not a given either with how much money might be saved by steaming breeding while on welfare. But i said earlier the money wasn't really the main goal of what i was getting at anyways. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing to help people even if it costs a bit more. Subjective i know.

So you want to raise my taxes, so that the govt. can afford to step on the reproductive rights of American citizens? If the goal isn't to save money, what is it - just to be mean? How can that possibly be "the right thing to help people"?

 

[soulcougher73]

So you want to raise my taxes, so that the govt. can afford to step on the reproductive rights of American citizens? If the goal isn't to save money, what is it - just to be mean? How can that possibly be "the right thing to help people"?

Well we don't know what the costs would be, we can only speculate. So breeding is priority one with you, costs be dammed or who has to pay for it? Why should I have to pay taxes so others can breed?