Teen pregancies are on a decline. Many of these welfare moms are (irresponsible) adults. It's hardly physically possible for a teenager to have half a dozen kids anyway.
Funny but the thing is MOST poeple on GA leave it and DO get a job. Also there is a high, very percentage of people that are - laid off, retired, disabled, veterans That also get Govt. assistance. This makes no sense. Plus at the amount thats paid out per year it is probably half of poverty line.
Here are some suggestions.
1. Able bodied people that can work should have to PAY TAXES on that money, the same way i will have to pay taxes on unemployment monies.
2. Instead of paying assistance to person that is able to work, provide a job and add the amount of the assistance to the salary = No job = no assistance....and they still will have to pay taxes on it.
3. Educate the public on WHO IS COLLECTING GOVT ASSISTANCE. How can anyone here makes suggestions if we all have a screwed up notion of who is collecting assistance and for what reason, most of what i have read so far is B.S.
Here are some suggestions.
1. Able bodied people that can work should have to PAY TAXES on that money, the same way i will have to pay taxes on unemployment monies.
2. Instead of paying assistance to person that is able to work, provide a job and add the amount of the assistance to the salary = No job = no assistance....and they still will have to pay taxes on it.
3. Educate the public on WHO IS COLLECTING GOVT ASSISTANCE. How can anyone here makes suggestions if we all have a screwed up notion of who is collecting assistance and for what reason, most of what i have read so far is B.S.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I feel the same way you guys do.
However, at the same time, it is also an externality--which means that when people have children they cannot afford to raise, they impose a cost on other people, such as the cost of public education, welfare, and health care.
Of course, one solution might be to have laissez-faire capitalism and to just let the children go uneducated and malnourished. Still, the costs of population growth would remain as would the costs for the legal system to incarcerate all of the criminals.
So, the issue really isn't that simple. I find myself on the side of the mandatory birth control advocates because I don't like having to pay for other people's irresponsible actions. It's distasteful, but so are high taxes and (or) starving children.
eh - i'm torn - on the one hand i agree with you but on the other hand some people shouldn't be parents (for the kid's sakes). since the alternative is people getting the gov't to pay for abortions birth control doesn't sound so bad. it shouldn't just be an all or nothing stance though. only people on welfare for the long term does it make sense to put them on birth control.
Isnt forcing a person to take birth control directly in conflict with Roe V Wade?
How can we force a person to ingest something into thier body? Isnt it a choice?
Im not being facetious. Seriously , I dont see how anyone that supports abortion can support this. Unless the true reasoning behind "pro choice" has nothing to do with choice.
How can we force a person to ingest something into thier body? Isnt it a choice?
Im not being facetious. Seriously , I dont see how anyone that supports abortion can support this. Unless the true reasoning behind "pro choice" has nothing to do with choice.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
if we keep poor people from breeding then rich kids will have to work the factories and fast food joints. i'm all for it. 
Originally posted by: judasmachine
if we keep poor people from breeding then rich kids will have to work the factories and fast food joints. i'm all for it.
Many wealthy parents in my region have their high school age kids work at grocery stores or similar jobs. Not because they need the money, but it supposedly builds character, teaches kids financial responsibility, and gives kids something to do with spare time.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: judasmachine
if we keep poor people from breeding then rich kids will have to work the factories and fast food joints. i'm all for it.
Many wealthy parents in my region have their high school age kids work at grocery stores or similar jobs. Not because they need the money, but it supposedly builds character, teaches kids financial responsibility, and gives kids something to do with spare time.
a nice thought but working in a grocery store is not like working in a factory...
I think a lot of them must be going by the mentality that if they spew out enough of their seed into the world, maybe one of them will actually grow up and make something of themselves and be able to pull the rest of the family out of the hole. Wishful thinking in most cases.
i'm not sure if it's that or just a lack of responsible action being taken (safe sex) due to a generally suck life scraping by on welfare.
From a genetic perspective, life will into what ever niche provides resourses for survival. If we allow people to continue to survive and reproduce with out the ability to self sustain than we will grow a population in the long term that acts as a parasite on the general populus. There are two choices, population control or natural selection and since we don't want a bunch of people starving and desperate commiting crime to feed their children, it seems that population control would be our best option. How can this be done? Welfare is a good start but again the implementation would be rather difficult, all the couple has to do is get off welfare to have children and then go back on welfare once she's pregnant.
Birth by permit - Requiring permits for birth seems to me to be the only option. You show that you have enough money to support, health insurance, etc. and you can get a permit to have a child. Libertarians hate the idea of a "Brave New World" but how else are we to deal with the inevitable growing population of welfare reciepients? Basically, it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. If you are poor and are willing to raise children on welfare then you know you get paid more to have more children. These people will multipy to a point where socioty will no longer be willing to bear the burden, again it's only a matter of time.
Birth by permit - Requiring permits for birth seems to me to be the only option. You show that you have enough money to support, health insurance, etc. and you can get a permit to have a child. Libertarians hate the idea of a "Brave New World" but how else are we to deal with the inevitable growing population of welfare reciepients? Basically, it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. If you are poor and are willing to raise children on welfare then you know you get paid more to have more children. These people will multipy to a point where socioty will no longer be willing to bear the burden, again it's only a matter of time.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Can pro-lifers say "Having a baby you don't want isn't forced - it's only if you have unprotected sex?"What's the difference?
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What's the difference?
the difference is welfare is there to help people financially and having more kids is only going to make things worse. they could also make it - we'll cut you off from welfare if you get knocked up again but that would just cause a lot of abortions instead. something needs to be done to slowdown unwanted pregnancies of people who can't afford to take care of more children properly.
The Roe v Wade decision does not provide total domain over one's body. The court decided that there must be evidence for a "compelling" state interest in the situation. For abortion, the court found that the state did not have interest in the fetus, especially in the first trimester.
Cases like Jacobson v. Massachusetts demonstrate where a line could be drawn. In it, the state of Mass. enacted a law requiring everyone to have a vaccination against smallpox. Jacobson argued the 14th amendment, citing that the state did not have the power. The court upheld the law, showing that one does not have total domain over one's body.
How in the hell would this be enforced? They could mandate to their heart's desire but we all know birth control isn't 100% effective. Granted, if someone keeps popping out babies every 9 months one would have room to argue non-compliance but, what's the "penalty"? Cut off their welfare completely? Who's that going to hurt, the parents or the kids?
you seem to be assuming that these people WANT to have more kids - i suspect many of the pregancies are accidental and quite preventable.
You really think everyone on welfare is using condoms and/or birth control pills (or devices)? Rather optimistic view of things.
Very constructive guys. Unfortunatly for you, it will be based upon the ability to support ones own offspring.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter