Paying poor women to tie their tubes, now there's an idea.

[Vehemence]

It all goes woosh over him apparently. :laugh:

 

[SSSnail]

Oh, now you're talking to your imagined friend. How cute!

Quick question, besides your imagine friend, do you talk to your mirror as well?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: ironwing
A voluntary program? Sure. Men too? Definitely. Even better with men as the procedure is less invasive and cheaper.

The problem with stuff like this being "voluntary" is that it winds up being somewhat involuntary. When you're on the poverty line and the choice is feed your kids (or send your kids to school or have transportation to work or fill in the blank) and get your tubes tied, you're not offering an incentive for doing it, you're threatening a punishment for not doing it. That's why they don't allow the sale of organs, same reason. Somebody winds up making a choice under duress, a choice they wouldn't otherwise be making.

 

[SSSnail]

What I don't understand is, with today's advancement in medical procedures, why does this have to be a permanent thing? Can't they just put a valve or some sort of spigot on the tubes? That way, if the poor person happens to prosper from their wise investment (read lottery), they can have the choice of having kids again.

 

[alkemyst]

They should require plastic surgery for ugly women.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

in the long term, this would be much less expensive for the taxpayer than a litter of professional welfare recipients. unfortunately, it will never happen.

 

[OUCaptain]

I'd vote for a tax hike to anyone having more than 2 kids (other than trilets, quadruplets, and so on). You assholes are the ones slowly killing the world with your over populating ways.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
They should require plastic surgery for ugly women.

Yea, but then your kids show up and you'd swear she cheated on you.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Nitemare
How else will they get welfare, wic and live on the government's tit if they can't bring bastards into the world?

Originally posted by: waggy
trouble is not everyone that goes on welfare is a lifetime member and a drain on society.

with that a person who say loses a wife/husband who is teh breadwinner and goes on welfare until there life improves needs it done? even if htey are only on welfare for say 5 months?

The only problem is most of the time it's not short-term and it's viewed as an entitlement and a source of income while they make money under the table quite often through illegal channels.

so because some abuse it lets sterilize anyone that may need it? not a good choice.

It's a voluntary procedure....

you might want to look at who i quoted..

😕

Originally posted by: JEDIit should be:
u want welfare $? well, you're going to get your tubes tied, or vasectomy (depending on gender)

this is what i was refering to. he is saying you want welfare then you need to get it done.

so no its not volontery. i was not talking about the orginal post just what jedi said.

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

Your problem is that you have not considered what other problems would arise if social services like welfare were completely dissolved and how those problems would effect you. Before fighting me on this one, take some time to really think about it. What do you think would happen if you pulled the ground from underneath all of these people's feet?

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: ironwing
A voluntary program? Sure. Men too? Definitely. Even better with men as the procedure is less invasive and cheaper.

The problem with stuff like this being "voluntary" is that it winds up being somewhat involuntary. When you're on the poverty line and the choice is feed your kids (or send your kids to school or have transportation to work or fill in the blank) and get your tubes tied, you're not offering an incentive for doing it, you're threatening a punishment for not doing it. That's why they don't allow the sale of organs, same reason. Somebody winds up making a choice under duress, a choice they wouldn't otherwise be making.

If you were in that situation, where you cannot provide for you children, should you even have the option of being able to have more?

An alternative would be to offer 0 incentive to have more kids. After 2, you receive no extra money from my taxes, it would hurt at first, but maybe people would stop and think about not having 74 kids when they have no job.

 

[Throckmorton]

How about tying Wall Street's tubes, or is welfare somehow worse than a $700 billion bailout?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: destrekor

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

Your problem is that you have not considered what other problems would arise if social services like welfare were completely dissolved and how those problems would effect you. Before fighting me on this one, take some time to really think about it. What do you think would happen if you pulled the ground from underneath all of these people's feet?

Well it's a little too late to straight up dissolve it at this point. It shouldn't have been established in the first place... I can basically guarantee numerous problems in society would not exist had welfare never been established in the first place.

But at this point, I'd completely agree with an earlier post, suggesting a predetermined amount of time one can stay on welfare, with potentially a specified amount of time allowed in total during a lifetime, which would likely be more than how long one can stay on for a single span of time.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: destrekor

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

Your problem is that you have not considered what other problems would arise if social services like welfare were completely dissolved and how those problems would effect you. Before fighting me on this one, take some time to really think about it. What do you think would happen if you pulled the ground from underneath all of these people's feet?

what would be a better solution? Throwing money and free housing/food/clothing at them? That has proven to be quite effective. Most projects are glistening examples of how great welfare is.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: destrekor

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

Your problem is that you have not considered what other problems would arise if social services like welfare were completely dissolved and how those problems would effect you. Before fighting me on this one, take some time to really think about it. What do you think would happen if you pulled the ground from underneath all of these people's feet?

Well it's a little too late to straight up dissolve it at this point. It shouldn't have been established in the first place... I can basically guarantee numerous problems in society would not exist had welfare never been established in the first place.

But at this point, I'd completely agree with an earlier post, suggesting a predetermined amount of time one can stay on welfare, with potentially a specified amount of time allowed in total during a lifetime, which would likely be more than how long one can stay on for a single span of time.

Here is my thing about welfare and most social services in general. First and foremost, a lot of them could use a lot of work. I fully support their purpose as well as many of the positive side effects that they provide for me even though I have never been on any. I just do not always support how they go about trying to fulfill that purpose. How to change it for the better is obviously a very large and complex debate which I will not get into here.

However, what I do know is what would happen in general if we took them away or downsized them too much. What that would do is cause a lot of people to become very desperate and desperate people do desperate things to survive. In short, it would cause a lot more crime and chaos which would most certainly effect people like me regardless of whether or not I am on these programs. People need food, clothing, water, housing, medicine, etc. They need these things for themselves and they need them for their children. There are no laws out there which will stop these people from doing whatever it takes to get these necessities. Try stopping a desperate mother from feeding her child. See what she does to make that happen if someone tries to stop her. Let's just say that the life of her child will most likely take priority over anyone else's life or laws.

These people will not all go out and get jobs and magically become responsible enough to take care of themselves like many believe. First of all, who would hire them all? Where are these jobs and gracious supervisors? Second of all, why do you think they will manage to keep their jobs as well as make their actual ends meet? Minimum wage does not feed a family of 3-4. They will not have enough to survive and they will start stealing whenever they can. You will see a lot more drugs on the streets too because the demand for them will rise substantially. You will see massive amounts of all kinds of crime and homeless everywhere. Their kids will grow up to be like junk yard dogs which obviously isn't the best way to preserve our country's future. This will not just be happening in the ghetto either. These crimes will spread to what are currently considered the better neighborhoods. You think these people will only steal from each other? No sir.

Then what are we going to do? Hire more police force? Fill up our jails and prisons with these new criminals? That doesn't solve anything. That just means we shift the tax dollars we currently spend on the social programs now and dump them into police, jails, and other forms of damage control. Of course, that still won't eliminate the entire new increase in crime. So what it really means is we end up spending more of our tax dollars and deal with more crime. We also eliminate all of the benefits we get from people who would have actually used the social services properly.



That is all just the tip of iceberg too. We have not even touched upon the disabled, the elderly, and the single moms who had everything under control until the dead beat dad decided to skip town. The domino effect of such an alternative future is quite awful. Sure, I hate paying for these social services when I don't use them just as much as the next guy. I hate how they do not always work as intended. I hate how much irresponsible people effect my life when the problems would all just vanish if they got and maintained a job and ran their lives more responsibly. I hate how the government sucks at being proactive towards fixing these services. However, I am very thankful that we have these services in place because while they are costing me my tax dollars, what I get in the end is a service which does a fairly decent job at minimizing how much these people's problems actually effect my daily life and my child's daily life. It may seem expensive, but the alternatives are much much more money and my life would not be any better. It would most likely be worse.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: destrekor

Personally, I think they should do that.
Welfare is a fucking joke, a social program I think that is FAR from necessary. Waste of money. Here we are, the taxpayers, supporting the poor people who put themselves into a situation where they don't work. They are a drag on our country, our workforce, and economy.

Your problem is that you have not considered what other problems would arise if social services like welfare were completely dissolved and how those problems would effect you. Before fighting me on this one, take some time to really think about it. What do you think would happen if you pulled the ground from underneath all of these people's feet?

Well it's a little too late to straight up dissolve it at this point. It shouldn't have been established in the first place... I can basically guarantee numerous problems in society would not exist had welfare never been established in the first place.

But at this point, I'd completely agree with an earlier post, suggesting a predetermined amount of time one can stay on welfare, with potentially a specified amount of time allowed in total during a lifetime, which would likely be more than how long one can stay on for a single span of time.

..

That's why there needs to be a case by case basis for the use and a limit on overall help received. If you eliminate the people who cheat/leach off the system, and only help those truly deserving, you greatly reduce the costs associated with the service.

If you want my tax dollars, you must prove that you can be a useful member of society. If not, no more free money for you. Why its not as simple as that I have no idea.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ric1287
That's why there needs to be a case by case basis for the use and a limit on overall help received. If you eliminate the people who cheat/leach off the system, and only help those truly deserving, you greatly reduce the costs associated with the service.

If you want my tax dollars, you must prove that you can be a useful member of society. If not, no more free money for you. Why its not as simple as that I have no idea.

I agree that is the fair idea, but I don't think it will work the way you intend for it to work. You will just see your tax dollars shift to other places where you don't want them spent and you will have more crime on your hands. A combination of prison and our legal system for tons of those people will prove to be far more expensive than what we pay now for their undeserved welfare.

Plus, one needs to consider that while the parents may not deserve it or improve, their kids will have a better shot than they would being starved most of the time. It is not a good shot, but it is a better shot.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: ironwing
A voluntary program? Sure. Men too? Definitely. Even better with men as the procedure is less invasive and cheaper.

The problem with stuff like this being "voluntary" is that it winds up being somewhat involuntary. When you're on the poverty line and the choice is feed your kids (or send your kids to school or have transportation to work or fill in the blank) and get your tubes tied, you're not offering an incentive for doing it, you're threatening a punishment for not doing it. That's why they don't allow the sale of organs, same reason. Somebody winds up making a choice under duress, a choice they wouldn't otherwise be making.

If you were in that situation, where you cannot provide for you children, should you even have the option of being able to have more?

An alternative would be to offer 0 incentive to have more kids. After 2, you receive no extra money from my taxes, it would hurt at first, but maybe people would stop and think about not having 74 kids when they have no job.

You've just been diagnosed with a rare but curable disease. You can't pay for either treatment of the cure. Coincidentally, having your tubes tied or lines snipped will provide the exact amount of money you need.

Do you give up your possibility of someday having children and live? That's coercion, not a decision. An arrangement like this would inevitably prey upon the poor, essentially denying many of them the choice to have children.

There are countless scenarios where the would-be parents are at no fault but will still be forced to choose to give up their ability to procreate.

If this were made real, a great plotline would be a love-revenge story, where the person who loses the girl intentionally ruins the guy who gets the girl, who's terribly ill, so guy 2 has to take the cash and get snipped to pay for her bills, and when she finds out they'll never have children she leaves him for guy 1. Yay drama! 🙂

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Another Eugenics movement. Great.

The term "Eugenics" carries way too much baggage with it to be used correctly nowadays. It's become nothing more than a buzzword used to rile people up.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Why not just make abortions free?

Seems easier and cheaper.

:thumbsup:

I've never priced out abortions but from other healthcare costs that I do know about I can assure you with some form of certainty that 2 abortions is more than 1000 dollars. This would mean you are not actually fixing the problem in the long run.

Tie someone's tubes you only have to do it once. Provide free abortions and destroy the fetus's of many sluts over and over and over again.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SirStev0


Guess who most of these people were... teenagers. If you were a bad apple or had mental problems or were deemed unintelligent you could be sterlized (yes it didn't happen much but this was the idea). There were people who were sterilized at this young age and ended up becoming fine normal people. It took away from the validity.

The other thing that put a fork into Eugenics was one of the hugest advocates of it losing face in the world stage... You may remember this. They were called the Nazis.

You fail at making a point.

When you can put forward a point logically without falling back on emotionally charged buzzwords or Nazi references, please come back.

 

[alkemyst]

personally IMHO I say if you are on welfare or go on welfare your next kid should require you to elect a sterilization or give up aid.

While working in a pharmacy I learned that many people on welfare had very nice cars with nice wheels, tint, stereos and very nice clothes/jewelry. I learned outside the pharmacy that many did drugs and drank a lot/partied.

More than once I asked about this and was told (paraphrase) "well I couldn't buy them new, but I got them off a guy that stole them".

It's costing us a lot.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Why not just make abortions free?

Seems easier and cheaper.

:thumbsup:

I've never priced out abortions but from other healthcare costs that I do know about I can assure you with some form of certainty that 2 abortions is more than 1000 dollars. This would mean you are not actually fixing the problem in the long run.

Tie someone's tubes you only have to do it once. Provide free abortions and destroy the fetus's of many sluts over and over and over again.

You can't use street price on this matter. It would be departmentalized. The hard costs are all that matter. I am not saying abortion is the right answer but there are not a lot of hard costs in the matter. Most charge a high price due to the collateral damage they suffer doing them.

 

[chuckywang]

This is kinda like the theory that we should pay for housing for homeless people.

 

[LilPima]

Originally posted by: Pheran
I really wish there was an easily-reversible, safe method of sterilization that could be applied to every single person at birth. Then, if you decide to have a child, you just pop into a clinic and have it reversed. It sure would solve a lot of problems.

Education, learned good decision making skills, and birth control! If you don't believe in that, then either lock it up or take care of it ... it would solve a lot of problems your way -- teenage dropouts, some school overcrowding, and people leaving babies on police station doorsteps