• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Someone needs to be held accountable...

For those who NEED welfare, the first two children should count. After that, no medical to pay for having more kids and no increase in welfare payments for more kids.

The lady in that video is a classic example of welfare abuse.
 
BoomerD said:
For those who NEED welfare, the first two children should count. After that, no medical to pay for having more kids and no increase in welfare payments for more kids.

The lady in that video is a classic example of welfare abuse.
Click to expand...

Can we agree that someone needs to be held accountable?
 
I agree also . So when is angle going to take responsiability for HER children and practice SMART sex. I will not take responsibility for Fatherless families when 1 parent still exist . My Mom came from a family of 15 and they were poor . They never ever took social money . I also seen the advantages of a large family . They out weigh the advantages of small family . Way more to life than having a +++ income. She is the reason I LOL at Welfare . The more kids you have the more free care you get . But But I was stuck into this situation by my station in life ,

She says someone has to be resposiable for this situation . So Angle when you going to Step up to the plate?
 
Ichinisan said:
Can we agree that someone needs to be held accountable?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. SHE should be accountable. If her legs didn't flap open every time a penis was near, she's perhaps have fewer "gifts from god" to support.

Yes, the "sperm donor" should also be held accountable...he's definitely not a father...just a sperm injection machine.
 
Solution is to start fixing people that can't stop having kids. Obviously they are just stray dogs in human form.
 
BoomerD said:
Absolutely. SHE should be accountable. If her legs didn't flap open every time a penis was near, she's perhaps have fewer "gifts from god" to support.

Yes, the "sperm donor" should also be held accountable...he's definitely not a father...just a sperm injection machine.
Click to expand...

Ha ha...my point exactly. Just trying to make sure my "semi-trolling" doesn't fly over anyone's RADAR. 🙂
 
BoomerD said:
Absolutely. SHE should be accountable. If her legs didn't flap open every time a penis was near, she's perhaps have fewer "gifts from god" to support.

Yes, the "sperm donor" should also be held accountable...he's definitely not a father...just a sperm injection machine.
Click to expand...

So here's the real question:

There are 15 children here, who are growing up in an environment of poverty, handouts, and will never see their mother (who sadly is their #1 role model) do a single day of paid work.

I agree that she is responsible for her own plight, and by any reasonable standard, it would be fine to cut her loose.

What do you suppose the long-term result of this would be? (Most of) the children won't actually starve, so at some point they will be adults, capable of being productive, or of continuing the family business.

So what's the best solution?
 
BoomerD said:
For those who NEED welfare, the first two children should count. After that, no medical to pay for having more kids and no increase in welfare payments for more kids.

The lady in that video is a classic example of welfare abuse.
Click to expand...

Please forgive my lak of letters between b an e.

You stole that iea from me. 🙂 If you have more hilren after 2 while on welfare, your payments o not inrease. If the state fins that you annot support your hilren after that, they may remove the hilren from the househol for neglet.
 
3chordcharlie said:
So here's the real question:

There are 15 children here, who are growing up in an environment of poverty, handouts, and will never see their mother (who sadly is their #1 role model) do a single day of paid work.

I agree that she is responsible for her own plight, and by any reasonable standard, it would be fine to cut her loose.

What do you suppose the long-term result of this would be? (Most of) the children won't actually starve, so at some point they will be adults, capable of being productive, or of continuing the family business.

So what's the best solution?
Click to expand...

There is no good answer. If the kids stay with her it's likely they will perpetuate the cycle of poverty and dependence. If they're taken from her they get thrown into a system which doesn't do a good job of taking care of the kids either. The kids didn't do anything wrong but they're stuck with the consequences of her mother's actions.
 
Ichinisan said:
[vague]
Surgery.
[/vague]
Click to expand...

Ignoring the obvious ethical problems, how would you identify who needed surgery before they had too many children to support?

To wit: sterilizing this woman now, or even 10 children ago would accomplish little since the unsupportable situation already existed.
 
Bignate603 said:
There is no good answer. If the kids stay with her it's likely they will perpetuate the cycle of poverty and dependence. If they're taken from her they get thrown into a system which doesn't do a good job of taking care of the kids either. The kids didn't do anything wrong but they're stuck with the consequences of her mother's actions.
Click to expand...

From a society perspective, wouldn't the goal be to provide adequately for the children, while having Mom work a productive job, and set a proper example for her children?

Rather than welfare, which requires not working, what about providing for the children, contingent on Mom having a job.

Sterilization, or at least a binding commitment to have no further children could be part of this. If Mom steps out, just shoot one of the kids😉 (ok, maybe not).
 
I've always thought that welfare was a silly system. You're teaching people that they don't need to work with no end date. Personally, it seems like the system should require some form of work for any able bodied person, even if it is busy work. Hard manual busy work. Make the job possible, but unpleasant. If the people really need the money and don't have any other options they'll do it. Even if it costs more to create busy work for them the cost of the program would be reduced. People would be motivated to move off the government support and into normal, easier jobs.

I fully support giving everyone an opportunity to provide for themselves but if they don't want to take that opportunity that is their right. However, it is not their right to expect others to provide for them (if they are able bodied).
 
3chordcharlie said:
From a society perspective, wouldn't the goal be to provide adequately for the children, while having Mom work a productive job, and set a proper example for her children?

Rather than welfare, which requires not working, what about providing for the children, contingent on Mom having a job.

Sterilization, or at least a binding commitment to have no further children could be part of this. If Mom steps out, just shoot one of the kids😉 (ok, maybe not).
Click to expand...

Maybe government daycare, and mandatory work would help. That won't fix anything NOW. The cost will be similar to just paying money, but it might save money in FUTURE by not making kids a profit mechanism.
 
DrPizza said:
Please forgive my lak of letters between b an e.

You stole that iea from me. 🙂 If you have more hilren after 2 while on welfare, your payments o not inrease. If the state fins that you annot support your hilren after that, they may remove the hilren from the househol for neglet.
Click to expand...

Doc, are you emulating [H]Arcadio?

No, I didn't steal this from you. I've advocated much the same thing for decades.

Welfare for those who need it...but pay ONLY for the first two children. Want to keep spitting out babies? (hmm...maybe if she's spit, she wouldn't have so many) No increase in monthly payments, no medical payments for any child after the first two. No OB/GYN payments for pre-natal care, no delivery payments, no post-natal care, no "well baby" payments, no state-paid medical care, even for emergency care.

Hell, I'm also fine with passing laws that restrict the number of children that ANYONE can have. Long gone are the agrian days when parents NEEDED a dozen kids to help with the planting and harvest. "Go forth and multiply has taken on a whole new meaning in recent years...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Go Forth and Multiply

I don't care if YOU can afford to have 6 or 10 or 20 kids...the planet can't afford for you to have that many.

The USA is quickly getting over-populated. Yes, some parts are still sparsely populated...but usually for good reasons. Either there's no work, or no housing, or the climate is so extreme that lots of folks don't want to live there. The USA shouldn't have to become "India overcrowded" before we start doing something about the problem.
 
I feel bad for the kids to have such a loser mom, and dad's for that matter. The kids deserve basic food and shelter.. mom can live in a cardboard box for her bad adult decisions. She's an anchor to society.
 
DrPizza said:
Please forgive my lak of letters between b an e.

You stole that iea from me. 🙂 If you have more hilren after 2 while on welfare, your payments o not inrease. If the state fins that you annot support your hilren after that, they may remove the hilren from the househol for neglet.
Click to expand...


Did you break your keyboard or did you misplaced your false teeth ? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

But i agree too about the welfare idea. That should also be the case in the EU.
 
All women in America should be required to be on some form of birth control until they get permission to have kids by demonstrating their ability to care for kids.
 
Nintendesert said:
All women in America should be required to be on some form of birth control until they get permission to have kids by demonstrating their ability to care for kids.
Click to expand...

The answer is not more gov't intervention, it's less. Cut welfare down to a six month limit, once per 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top