Should people on goverment disability be allowed to have children?

[Spikesoldier]

well people have to learn, its that simple. The current Entitlement society cannot sustain itself forever, it will collapse its only a matter of time unless we do something about it first.

whats ironic is that these people demanding entitlements and tearing down the system through revolt will only hurt their own quality of life and lifestyle that they were so dependent on.

 

[Rifter]

whats ironic is that these people demanding entitlements and tearing down the system through revolt will only hurt their own quality of life and lifestyle that they were so dependent on.

I know, which is why i posted what i did in my first response.

I know it would be harsh to let children starve but at the current rate i dont believe the current society will be able to sustain itself for 10 years without collapse, so either way in 10 years the handouts wont be there and the mothers of these kids will have to get jobs or the kids will starve anyways. At lease if we start this now we have a chance to save what we have before letting it collapse and then rebuild from the ground up.

Look at the rest of the world without goverment handouts, If you have a kid in any country without goverment assistance and you have no job guess what happens, your kid starves. Its harsh but it called REAL FUCKING LIFE people.

I wish i knew how we got to this point.

 

[fskimospy]

I know, which is why i posted what i did in my first response.

I know it would be harsh to let children starve but at the current rate i dont believe the current society will be able to sustain itself for 10 years without collapse, so either way in 10 years the handouts wont be there and the mothers of these kids will have to get jobs or the kids will starve anyways. At lease if we start this now we have a chance to save what we have before letting it collapse and then rebuild from the ground up.

Look at the rest of the world without goverment handouts, If you have a kid in any country without goverment assistance and you have no job guess what happens, your kid starves. Its harsh but it called REAL FUCKING LIFE people.

I wish i knew how we got to this point.

Our society will be just fine in 10 years, and if it isn't it will have almost nothing to do with the limited percentage of our GDP that we give to economic support for indigent children. The rest of the world without government handouts lives in areas with vastly inferior quality of life as compared to those with handouts. Looks like the evidence points pretty strongly as to who got it right.

 

[Lemon law]

Texas Hiker has identified his target couple, lets us empower him with a taser, so he can supervise her 24/7. And every time she gets horney and wants to have sex with her equally dysfunctional boy friend, lets empower Texas Hiker use his taser to dissuade them.

That will keep Texas Hiker out of further mischief, but who else will volunteer to make it their lifetime mission to be the birth control cops 24/7 for all those other welfare Mom's

And then we forget to ask, what happens when Texas Hiker falls asleep on the job, we can let Texas Hiker pay the welfare costs of the resultant child while he was snoozing on the job while they had their moment of unsupervised fun.

Hey, it works for me. Blame the self appointed sex police for their incompetence and not the taxpayer.

 

[Rifter]

Our society will be just fine in 10 years

Really, because if you look at the debt figures for the US 10 years ago it was 56.6% of the GDP, and in 2010 was 93.4%. It doesnt take a genuis to figure out we cant continue like this. And the first thing to go is going to be goverment assistance programs.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah, lets let the federal government control who can have children. That's the kind of fascist wonderland I want live in... Facepalm. Do people even think before asking these kinds of retarded questions?

Yes, I "thought" before this thread was posted.

This is what i think, its going to be harsh but its what i think.

I think that if your only source of income is goverment dole and there is no real physical/mental reason you cannot hold a job then if you are stupid enough to have a kid thats fine, its your right, <snip>

There is this issue with "the law", it will always err in favor of the child. regardless if the parents are on the public dole or not, the law wants to make sure the child is taken care of.

Your plan amounts to kill the children. You better come up with a really good slogan.

P.S. People won't stop having children if the government stops supporting them. We'll just have more unhealthy children and more societal problems, which will cost us even more money in the long run (not to mention the moral void this entails).

At what point are parents to be made responsible for the children they have?

 

[fskimospy]

Really, because if you look at the debt figures for the US 10 years ago it was 56.6% of the GDP, and in 2010 was 93.4%. It doesnt take a genuis to figure out we cant continue like this. And the first thing to go is going to be goverment assistance programs.

That's cherry picking a time period, which isn't a good way to look at things. Regardless of that, you said that our society would collapse or that we would cut assistance programs. Considering the small percentage of our GDP that goes towards welfare programs such as these, I'm curious as to why allowing them to persist would cause collapse.

You might be able to make the argument that we are going to continue to chip away at our social safety net over the next 10 years, but that's a way different argument than the one you put out.

 

[Rifter]

That's cherry picking a time period, which isn't a good way to look at things. Regardless of that, you said that our society would collapse or that we would cut assistance programs. Considering the small percentage of our GDP that goes towards welfare programs such as these, I'm curious as to why allowing them to persist would cause collapse.

You might be able to make the argument that we are going to continue to chip away at our social safety net over the next 10 years, but that's a way different argument than the one you put out.

of course its picking a time perioud, the last ten years, which just happens to have the best input as to whats going to happen in the next ten years.

I still think the dole programs will be the first thing to go but i guess we will figure it out over the next ten years.

Either way the rest of the taxpayers should not have the carry the burden of stupid people, YOU make a choice YOU live with the consequences. Not you make a choice and its up to the rest of society to deal with it because you are a stupid irresponsible idiot.

 

[Spikesoldier]

That's cherry picking a time period, which isn't a good way to look at things. Regardless of that, you said that our society would collapse or that we would cut assistance programs. Considering the small percentage of our GDP that goes towards welfare programs such as these, I'm curious as to why allowing them to persist would cause collapse.

You might be able to make the argument that we are going to continue to chip away at our social safety net over the next 10 years, but that's a way different argument than the one you put out.

What do you think our fine politicians would cut first when we run out of money and the fed says 'lol guyz, we cant print no more'? So what is on the chopping block? Wasteful Pork or 'charitable' social programs?

I've got my money on the latter. If TOO many people are dependent on these programs in the next decade, then collapse will happen as well afterwards in the form of a revolt.

 

[Rifter]

I got another idea.

I still think letting kids starve would be a much better/faster learning experiance for the stupid deadbeat moms and resolve this issue faster.

You could also cut goverment handouts for children allowances to welfare moms who chose to have a kid anyways. Then when the kid starves the goverment can pull them and put them into fostercare/adoption programs. And then bill the welfare mom for the cost of said foster care/adoption, and since welfare mom wont be able to pay just stop paying out the welfare till debt is repaid, if that happens to take 5 years well no handout for 5 years, deal with it, it was your idea to have the kid in the first place.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I know, which is why i posted what i did in my first response.

I know it would be harsh to let children starve but at the current rate i dont believe the current society will be able to sustain itself for 10 years without collapse, so either way in 10 years the handouts wont be there and the mothers of these kids will have to get jobs or the kids will starve anyways. At lease if we start this now we have a chance to save what we have before letting it collapse and then rebuild from the ground up.

Look at the rest of the world without goverment handouts, If you have a kid in any country without goverment assistance and you have no job guess what happens, your kid starves. Its harsh but it called REAL FUCKING LIFE people.

I wish i knew how we got to this point.

Wait, so you're basically saying you want America to become more like some fucked up starving African country?

That's just great pal.

Do you understand that some of us feel it's important to advance our societys, and make things better for the poor and less fortunate?

 

[Lemon law]

Well we can always resort to the Jonathon Swift thesis of Irish economics with updated figures.

If each female can produce a 7 pound child every nine months, and sell the meat on the open market for $4.00 a pound, well that $28.00 every nine months, which works out $37.33 dollars per annum for each and every welfare Mom. Hey such numbers mount up fast to become a real economic force. We need to list such prices on the daily livestock farm reports along with pork bellies. Lucky is the Mom who hits the jackpot and gets $4.50 cents a pound. Sadly less than full term babies are lighter and don't pay as well. But the production is faster and some will pay a price premium because the meat is more tender.

 

[JSt0rm]

baby meat will be up there with kobe beef. Expect around 50 a pound at the very least. Every other animal on the planet tastes best when its a baby so I'm sure the same goes for Man.

 

[Rifter]

Wait, so you're basically saying you want America to become more like some fucked up starving African country?

That's just great pal.

Do you understand that some of us feel it's important to advance our societys, and make things better for the poor and less fortunate?

At the US's current rate of inceasing debt with no signs of slowing down the US turing into a country with no goverment handouts is inevitable, its just a matter of how long the debt holders(like china) will wait before saying enough is enough.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

At the US's current rate of inceasing debt with no signs of slowing down the US turing into a country with no goverment handouts is inevitable, its just a matter of how long the debt holders(like china) will wait before saying enough is enough.

Blaming social programs for your financial predicament is disingenuous at best, and idiotic at worst.

Stop your wars
Increase taxes to a resonable level
Get some UHC
etc

then if you still have issues you can blame welfare.

 

[Rifter]

Blaming social programs for your financial predicament is disingenuous at best, and idiotic at worst.

Stop your wars
Increase taxes to a resonable level
Get some UHC
etc

then if you still have issues you can blame welfare.

Im not saying the social programs are the cause, im saying they will be the first thing the gov will cut.

BTW im not a US citizen, thank god, even though my own goverment is equally retarded when it comes to gov handouts.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Im not saying the social programs are the cause, im saying they will be the first thing the gov will cut.

BTW im not a US citizen, thank god, even though my own goverment is equally retarded when it comes to gov handouts.

Then why do you want kids to starve to death?

 

[woolfe9999]

To all the people who believe that everyone on public assistance is stupid and/or lazy, do you guys think that our economy supports full employment, either now or at any time? Will removing government assistance actually increase net employment? If so, how?

It seems obvious that the economy supports fewer jobs than the total number of people who are theoretically capable of working. Accordingly, there are going to be x number of unemployed people, some short term and others long term. So "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is nonsense. The best you can do is displace someone else who already has a job. Pulling public assistance is not going to make people more self-reliant, and even if it did, they'd be self-reliance and unemployed at the same time.

If you have an economy that won't supply jobs for everyone, you can either let them and their kids starve or not. That's pretty much what it comes down to. Or you can find a way to supply jobs for everyone, in which case everyone who doesn't take a job is either lazy or disabled, and you can then justify at least cutting the lazy ones loose.

- wolf

 

[cubby1223]

Why is the question phrased "Should people on government disability be allowed to have children?"

When it instead could have been phrased "Should people on government disability who have children be allowed to continue collecting more and more free money?"

 

[Rifter]

Then why do you want kids to starve to death?

Because it would be one hell of a wake up call and might actually get something done. Obviosly society is to stupid to figure out that the current entitlement/consumtion society is not working and is not sustainable. If the US keeps going to way it is now they will starve anyways eventually, its just a matter of now or then. I think doing something about the economic state of the US BEFORE it completly falls apart is better than waiting for it to fall apart and then doing something about it after the fact.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Sort of off topic, but was brought up in first few posts...

How does a poor person having a baby make anyone else richer?

IE, how does it increase the concentration of wealth for the 1% or how does it make a rich person richer?

I don't really follow.

 

[DirkGently1]

Another lazy bint who clearly has no intention of ever doing a day's work in her life. Her tubes should be tied, (preferrably around her neck), or her benefits should be cut off.

 

[Agfadoc]

First post here, I really should have waited but this one caught my eye.

I have read all the responses and clearly there are people who would like to play Robin Hood with other peoples money and goods. I'll preface what I say with I want to help people who are "UNABLE" to help themselves. Military vets, handicapped, and mentally disabled, but I refuse to help anyone unwilling to help themselves.

When did the point of being on our own and doing things on our own go away? When you are hungry enough, you'll find a way, otherwise you remove the motivation to continue on. You cannot give someone something and expect to create a desire to move forward, you simply create an expectation that you'll give again.

Teach them to lift themselves up, teach them to empower themselves, but don't ever give into the enablement of the society at large. The politicians are disgusting rats who feed off the flesh of the rest of us and use these people as their way to climb up the ladder. The socialist uses the weak minded to enrich themselves off the backs of the useful idiot.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

 

[Agfadoc]

I am so sick of the term 1%.. lets say you take everything away from the 1%.. will that fix the problem?

Then the NEW 1% will be looked at and then we can take from them, then what? We take everything from the next 1% and the next.. Then what?

You'll never fix the problem by taking from someone else. You have to stand on your own, and help others stand on their own to really make a difference.

Creating a demon so you can destroy it will not fix the problem, you'll just create a different 1% group. We are humans, we are predictable.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

 

[dabuddha]

Absolutely not.