Should people on goverment disability be allowed to have children?

[Agfadoc]

I think you mean resorting, Mr. Intelligence.

Yeah thank swype for the misspelling, I'll take the hit for not looking. That is the difference between you and I, I can see my flaws and admit them and move on.. That is called character.. Maybe you should check into it.

 

[Agfadoc]

So none of you left leaning people know of anyone abusing the system? Wow.. That is amazing... You take one aspect and turn it upside down but can't see the larger argument here. I'm willing to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves...but not the ones who are just parasites of our society.

Here is a fine example:

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessn...dy-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

This is perfectly fine with the progressives right?

I will help the people who I choose to help which is likely more than most people here, not forced to help some drug addict, or some baby making machine keeping the checks coming in. Staying unmarried so they don't go after the father..

But none of these things matter to the left, you want to force me to pay for people who I do not want to support, you want me to pay for those who go against every moral fiber in me. I don't think so....

I will say again, your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

 

[CitizenKain]

So none of you left leaning people know of anyone abusing the system? Wow.. That is amazing... You take one aspect and turn it upside down but can't see the larger argument here. I'm willing to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves...but not the ones who are just parasites of our society.

Here is a fine example:

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessn...dy-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

This is perfectly fine with the progressives right?

I will help the people who I choose to help which is likely more than most people here, not forced to help some drug addict, or some baby making machine keeping the checks coming in. Staying unmarried so they don't go after the father..

But none of these things matter to the left, you want to force me to pay for people who I do not want to support, you want me to pay for those who go against every moral fiber in me. I don't think so....

I will say again, your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

Tell you what, soon as I don't have to pay for something useless like a military or for a PMC to murder brown people, then you can stop having to help someone.

 

[IGBT]

the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

 

[Siddhartha]

I have noticed that there always seems to be support and money available for killing people, for example how much did the US spend and is spending on the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars? How many people here are against supporting the woman in the OP and would support a war with Iran?

Some of you are freaking out about helping a woman who has pretty serious mental problems and who is pregnant too. Someone actually blamed the budget deficit on helping people. And there been suggestions that border on government forced abortions and ferilizations.

What does that say about your values?

 

[Texashiker]

Here is a fine example:

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessn...dy-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

This is perfectly fine with the progressives right?

A few months ago I had a review on my child support case. I was not behind, the state just wanted to do a review to see if there had been any changes to my income.

There must have been close to 100 people in the court room, all of them there for child support issues.

Several of the people called reported 0 income. Some of the parents said they had not worked in 6+ months, they were living with someone and that person was paying their bills.

I thought it was rather sick that people could have kids, and then refused to be responsible for them.

 

[Paratus]

Even better:
Don't allow abortion but let the child starve to death to 'teach the parents a lesson.' Good plan. People that think like that shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Well this is Christmas time and what better way to celebrate the season!

Ebenezer Scrooge said it best, "...then let them die and decrease the surplus population." He was a great conservative. Job creator, free marketer, suffered from taxes. Any repub should be honored to look up to him.

 

[dank69]

Well this is Christmas time and what better way to celebrate the season!

Ebenezer Scrooge said it best, "...then let them die and decrease the surplus population." He was a great conservative. Job creator, free marketer, suffered from taxes. Any repub should be honored to look up to him.

Yeah but he was weak and one little bad dream broke him.

 

[bfdd]

It isn't so much that I want people to die, I don't, it's that the harsh realities of life must not be forgotten. The only reason we are capable of having ANYTHING is due to our surplus production of food. This is why not a single fucking person in the US of A should have a goddamn TV if they cannot feed themselves. They shouldn't have anything. Food and water are the most essential things to survival. If you are unable to do anything to achieve that on your own, why should we afford the rest of your "first world amenities"?

This carries over to the children of such people. It is quite brutal to allow children to suffer under such policies, but what are we to do? We cannot care for all and such is life.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The real issue shouldn't be whether or not she should have children. I believe most reasonable people agree that being able to have children without government consent is a freedom everyone should enjoy.

However the real issue is whether it is acceptable for this woman to be able pawn off her future child/children onto society if and when she fails to provide for them due to her disability and dependency on government aide despite all the warnings against her having a child/children.

When you ignore the ethical morality of allowing others to force their mistakes onto society (aka the tax payer) you then have situations that spiral out of control such as the one below:


"Woman With 15 Kids: "Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w


Where the tax payer is then cornered and forced to act (cough up tax dollars or else go to jail foo!) to fix the mistakes made by other people who are on government aide and breed without thought as to how they can support their child/children.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Tell you what, soon as I don't have to pay for something useless like a military or for a PMC to murder brown people, then you can stop having to help someone.

This is just a pure straw-man fallacy that further asserts his point that tax payer dollars should not be wasted by government.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I have noticed that there always seems to be support and money available for killing people, for example how much did the US spend and is spending on the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars? How many people here are against supporting the woman in the OP and would support a war with Iran?

Some of you are freaking out about helping a woman who has pretty serious mental problems and who is pregnant too. Someone actually blamed the budget deficit on helping people. And there been suggestions that border on government forced abortions and ferilizations.

What does that say about your values?

That's awesome that you want to completely neglect the burden she wants to place on society and the issues she may create for her yet to be unborn child because of her mental illness. Two wrongs never make a right but it seems you've found a way to have them diverge in your mind because of an emotional view that you believe it would be in the best interest for everyone else to have to support this kid via services, etc when his/her guardian could possibly completely unfit to take care of themselves let a alone a child. I see the spirit of Mother Theresa lives on in you my friend.

 

[Carmen813]

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

At what point is society not responsible for the children who reside in it?

We can round in circles all day. I suggest you take a longer look at my first post. What you are suggesting has been suggested before and was in fact U.S. policy for over 40 years. And it was a complete travesty and human atrocity. What's worse is that the after effects still impact our cultural and thinking, which is very unfortunate.

I'm not saying reviewing the information in my initial post will change your mind, but it will at least give you greater awareness of the issues faced by people with disabilities.

On a side note,
You also can't "force" people to be responsible. Forcing in general is a poor way to achieve positive results. What we can do is try to create a society that doesn't lead to quite so much mental illness in the first place.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

You really think the government assistance programs we're talking about here, that we've had for decades, are fundamentally (and irreversibly) the cause of our debt issues?

We might not be fine in 10 years if we don't come up with some solution. But it seems equally silly to suggest that the way government programs work is fundamentally broken.

 

[bfdd]

At what point is society not responsible for the children who reside in it?

We can round in circles all day. I suggest you take a longer look at my first post. I'm not saying it will change your mind, but it will at least give you greater awareness of the issues.

Society didn't create the children, individuals chose to do that, so why should society ever be held responsible for the children in it? i don't disagree that we should better our children, but there is a point where you put your foot down and someone who is incapable of feeding themselves certainly shouldn't have children and we certainly shouldn't be on the dole for them. you are enslaving us into child rearing and that's bullshit.

You really think the government assistance programs we're talking about here, that we've had for decades, are fundamentally (and irreversibly) the cause of our debt issues?

We might not be fine in 10 years if we don't come up with some solution. But it seems equally silly to suggest that the way government programs work is fundamentally broken.

I didn't take that from his post at all, I just read it as what would be the first things to go when we hit our spending cap and really have to start pulling things in.

 

[Rainsford]

It isn't so much that I want people to die, I don't, it's that the harsh realities of life must not be forgotten. The only reason we are capable of having ANYTHING is due to our surplus production of food. This is why not a single fucking person in the US of A should have a goddamn TV if they cannot feed themselves. They shouldn't have anything. Food and water are the most essential things to survival. If you are unable to do anything to achieve that on your own, why should we afford the rest of your "first world amenities"?

This carries over to the children of such people. It is quite brutal to allow children to suffer under such policies, but what are we to do? We cannot care for all and such is life.

Why not? This whole embrace of the law of the jungle seems to ignore the massive surplus of everything a modern economy tends to produce. You want to talk about the harsh realities of life? How about the fact that we DON'T live in medieval times any more, and if some relatively small portion of society's economic output is used to support those who can't support themselves it's probably not going to be the end of the world.

 

[Rainsford]

...

I didn't take that from his post at all, I just read it as what would be the first things to go when we hit our spending cap and really have to start pulling things in.

The discussion seemed to center on the idea that social programs are fundamentally unsustainable, which doesn't seem at all obvious to me. I will agree that they'll probably be the first to get the axe though.

 

[bfdd]

Why not? This whole embrace of the law of the jungle seems to ignore the massive surplus of everything a modern economy tends to produce. You want to talk about the harsh realities of life? How about the fact that we DON'T live in medieval times any more, and if some relatively small portion of society's economic output is used to support those who can't support themselves it's probably not going to be the end of the world.

Rainsford, feeding everyone is fully within our capable means and we can do it cheaply. So we should do it, we shouldn't be affording people other luxuries though and that is where I have issue. That was mostly used for example in my post, although I do believe those who are dragging behind should be left there. We cannot drop down to the lowest common denominator nor should we regulate for such, I mean you agree with that right? You're the one saying we don't live in the dark ages any longer.

 

[Rainsford]

Rainsford, feeding everyone is fully within our capable means and we can do it cheaply. So we should do it, we shouldn't be affording people other luxuries though and that is where I have issue. That was mostly used for example in my post, although I do believe those who are dragging behind should be left there. We cannot drop down to the lowest common denominator nor should we regulate for such, I mean you agree with that right? You're the one saying we don't live in the dark ages any longer.

I suppose I'd agree with the luxury idea depending on how you define that term. Those that can lift themselves out of the need for social programs will need more than food/shelter to accomplish that.

But I don't think social programs drag us down to the lowest common denominator. I don't think very many people who can really do more are going to stick with the relatively low benefits of social programs. I suppose you could argue that the money spent on social programs could be used for a better cause, but I'm not sure society as a whole doesn't benefit from not leaving people behind.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Government has no business in regulating who has children, who doesn't, and how many.

/thread

Nor paying for peoples children either.

It should be 100% free market. Have 9 kids cant afford them, shit better get 3 jobs.

 

[bfdd]

I suppose I'd agree with the luxury idea depending on how you define that term. Those that can lift themselves out of the need for social programs will need more than food/shelter to accomplish that.

But I don't think social programs drag us down to the lowest common denominator. I don't think very many people who can really do more are going to stick with the relatively low benefits of social programs. I suppose you could argue that the money spent on social programs could be used for a better cause, but I'm not sure society as a whole doesn't benefit from not leaving people behind.

I don't think they do either, but with the way some wish they were ran and the way we allow them to be abused you would sure think that's what they were for. I love social services, I love knowing I am helping someone who wants to help themselves. I do not love helping those who refuse.

Also, Rainsford the hardest part for me being ok with leaving some behind is what we potentially might miss out on. It's quite the sad thought and hard to stomach, it's not like I'm happy about things being this way. It's just the reality of life.

 

[Texashiker]

At what point is society not responsible for the children who reside in it?

We can round in circles all day. I suggest you take a longer look at my first post. <snip> I'm not saying reviewing the information in my initial post will change your mind, but it will at least give you greater awareness of the issues faced by people with disabilities.

The system we currently have is far from perfect, but surely there are ways to make improvements.

A few months ago I went to court for a child support review. There were guys being called into court who owed $10,000, $20,000,,, all the way to $100,000. The guy who owed $100k, his mom showed up in his behalf. A couple of the people were arrested on the spot because they had not helped support their children

I do not mind helping people. But they should first be willing to help themselves.

And we are not talking about people who need disability benefits. If someone needs the benefits, then I have no issue with it.

 

[dank69]

...
This carries over to the children of such people. It is quite brutal to allow children to suffer under such policies, but what are we to do? We cannot care for all and such is life.

Ah, but we can and we do.

This is just a pure straw-man fallacy that further asserts his point that tax payer dollars should not be wasted by government.

It is quite clear from this post that you do not know what a straw man fallacy is.

 

[Lanyap]

I personally know one multigeneration family where all of them are on some sort of government assistance. That's four generations and at least eight people. It's not uncommon for poor rural folks in the South. The kids drop out of school, sometimes get odd jobs, never get good permanent jobs, get pregnant when they are too young and get every kind of government assistance they can. It's very frustrating when you see it in person and you know you are paying a lot more in taxes because of it. They make poor life and financial decisions.

I don't mind some of my tax money going to people who can't do for themselves but it has gotten out of hand. I have personally paid college tuition for two of them to try and get them out of this cycle. I'm not sure it's going to work though. One got pregnant and has not finished. It's sad and frustrating.

 

[WHAMPOM]

First - this is not a troll thread. Over the weekend I found out some information, and I am hoping to have a discussion on said information.

Young adult lady about 20 years old is receiving Social Security disability benefits. The lady is "supposed" to be disabled because she is bi-polar and is a little "off", as her friends described her. I met the lady in question. The only thing I think she needs is a kick in the butt and some kind of college education.

A couple of months ago the lady got knocked up by her boyfriend. As I am listening to the story about her controlling boyfriend and how her family is worried about her, I keep thinking to myself, "if you are supposed to be disabled, living off of my tax dollars, why are you going to have kids that will probably end up living off the system?"

In short:

Lady claims she is disabled and is drawing social security disability checks.

Lady gets knocked up.

Lady has no way to provide for child except through social program benefits.

My opinion:

It might be just me, but I think this situation is part of the problem with the US. someone can not take care of themselves, but can squeeze out babies that will probably be supported by public money.

But then again, where do we draw the line? Who decides who can have children and who can not?

Been there, done that, it was called Hitler's Germany ending in death camps and genocide. Thought all you Texas righties was agin' abotion and contraception or is that a "do what you say not what you do" concept?