Title Expunged

[Onceler]

if they stay on it for more than six months. And they should lose the right to vote for as long as they are on it.
If they choose to stay on it after six months-mandatory castration.

Please change your topic title immediately, as your "solution" is not fit for inclusion in this particular forum. This is your one warning on inappropriate posting. The next moderator action will be to disbar you from DC.

Perknose
Forum Director

Thread given a mercy killing. Even in P&N this would have been a troll thread.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[kia75]

What about those on corporate welfare? Should companies that receive such government largess also face similar punishments?

 

[Onceler]

It's not punishment. Those who get off of welfare don't lose their nuts or the right to vote. It's the lazy ass good for nothings that do.
Yes companies should not be allowed to take from the taxpayers either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about those on corporate welfare? Should companies that receive such government largess also face similar punishments?

You do realize that the effective tax rates on business are among the highest? Everyone can point to some example where someone is getting "corporate welfare" but if you come to my state of NY and look at Rochester and Buffalo you'll see a dying economy. It's too expensive to conduct business here. Go a couple of hours away to Toronto and look at how that "costly" environment is doing. They aren't there for the wonderful climate.

Regarding the OP, there's not much to say. No. That does not mean I think that something like a depo pregnancy shot is out of the question. We have babies funded to have babies. It's not the lack of the contraception, it's the lack of any accountability. The larger the family the larger the check. That has no equivalent for those working.

The cycle pf poverty literally breeding poverty needs to stop.

 

[poofyhairguy]

That is a terrible solution for those who just need help "during a rough time" (which could be 1+ year in this economy).

The solution is caps on welfare- IE you can only be on a max of four years or something like that. That would get rid of the incentive to have kids just to collect welfare as you have to take care of them after year four.

This would have to be accompanied by some program to give tax breaks to employing those recently on welfare for employers.

 

[nehalem256]

What about those on corporate welfare? Should companies that receive such government largess also face similar punishments?

Well first you would have to figure out what corporate "welfare" is.

Normally it is used to refer to paying corporations to provide services/goods to the government :hmm: or to give tax breaks to special corporations to cover up the fact that the US has one of the highest marginal corporate rates in the world.

The closest example of real corporate welfare would be the bank and auto bailouts. Which were paid back with interest.

 

[nehalem256]

That is a terrible solution for those who just need help "during a rough time" (which could be 1+ year in this economy).

The solution is caps on welfare- IE you can only be on a max of four years or something like that. That would get rid of the incentive to have kids just to collect welfare as you have to take care of them after year four.

This would have to be accompanied by some program to give tax breaks to employing those recently on welfare for employers.

The solution is to make welfare more like unemployment or perhaps combine them into one program.

Losing your job qualifies as "falling on rough times". Choosing to have a kid when you are a HS dropout qualifies as being an idiot.

 

[Anarchist420]

Instead of cutting their balls off, the welfare state should just be cut to zero.

Castrating people while continuing the welfare state just increases the power of the govt even more. Someone would also have to be paid to castrate people.

Also, if the govt didn't tax single people without kids so damn much, then welfare wouldn't even appear to be necessary.

 

[Onceler]

The threat of having their nuts cut off will give them more incentive to find work. Those who fall on rough times should be able to find work within six months and while they are on welfare they should not be allowed to vote.

 

[shadow9d9]

How is this nonsense allowed in this forum?

Corporate welfare is 10x more and worse than helping a few people get shelter/food to survive.

 

[Vdubchaos]

OP makes it seem like voting is meaningful hehe

 

[EagleKeeper]

The threat of having their nuts cut off will give them more incentive to find work. Those who fall on rough times should be able to find work within six months and while they are on welfare they should not be allowed to vote.

What company is going to want to take on a $20/hr person who they know will bail in a minute the moment a $40/hr job shows up?

 

[nehalem256]

How is this nonsense allowed in this forum?

Corporate welfare is 10x more and worse than helping a few people get shelter/food to survive.

I already answered your corporate "welfare" complaint

Well first you would have to figure out what corporate "welfare" is.

Normally it is used to refer to paying corporations to provide services/goods to the government :hmm: or to give tax breaks to special corporations to cover up the fact that the US has one of the highest marginal corporate rates in the world.

The closest example of real corporate welfare would be the bank and auto bailouts. Which were paid back with interest.

Cries of corporate welfare are nothing more than a distraction. Funny you don't see people on the left crying about corporate "welfare" when it goes to companies creating green jobs.

 

[piasabird]

When they sell electric cars and the government gives the manufacturer/buyer an $8,000 Electric Vehicle credit for not using gasoline, that is corporate welfare.

 

[GoPackGo]

You realize that would be TOTALLY unconstitutional, right?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Master Jesus said "Do not cast your pearls before swine".

A mere five passages before that: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

 

[Thebobo]

The threat of having their nuts cut off will give them more incentive to find work. .

What if its a woman?

 

[fskimospy]

An impressively disgusting thread. Why didn't this go in P&N?

If nothing else threads like this do a good job of detecting the sociopaths that hang around here though.

 

[sandorski]

This does not belong in Discussion.

 

[Onceler]

A mere five passages before that: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

in the same manner which you judge others.
In other words judge fairly and you will be judged fairly.
If you can't get a job in six months then you have no business having more children.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[Whiskey16]

An impressively disgusting thread. Why didn't this go in P&N?

Exactly. It's a theme of forced sterilisation and eugenics, under an ideological and trolling soundbite for an OP. Zero recognition nor interest of existing laws and constitutional rights.

The P&N is a well known cesspool where the permitted anti-social behaviour encourages the denigration of reasonable discussion, and the expectations of crap such as this OP. As such, the existing P&N deregulation would be best served under a different Social forum banner, and simply have the Politics & News bound by this forum's regular rules. If members' can't handle the expected decorum of AnandTech's forums, then they will still have a cesspool to inhabit while there being no confusion as to where people expect to first discuss Politics & News, and zero confusion nor disappointment that such a venue is bound by the same rules as the rest of the site.

The Discussion Club has been an interesting experiment, but in the end it's just a forum here under the guidelines of the rest of the site, and it is a practicing Politics & News forum without the clear designation of such.

solution: Remove the Discussion Club, bind the P&N fully to the common AnandTech guidelines, and create a new Free-for-All sandbox for the vocally bullying P&N rabble that rail against any reasonably limiting constraints.

 

[kia75]

You do realize that the effective tax rates on business are among the highest? Everyone can point to some example where someone is getting "corporate welfare" but if you come to my state of NY and look at Rochester and Buffalo you'll see a dying economy. It's too expensive to conduct business here. Go a couple of hours away to Toronto and look at how that "costly" environment is doing. They aren't there for the wonderful climate.

Incorrect, the current effective tax rate on businesses is the lowest it's been since before World War 1 (roughly 100 years ago). The current effective tax rate is roughly 12.1% Compare this to the UK, which has an effective corporate tax rate of ~25%. source

The truth of the matter is that businesses pay twice or more taxes in almost every other first-world country and do just fine. Our current effective tax rate is not only low for 1st worlds, but it's low for America as we have to go back nearly 100 years to find a lower tax rate. And the effective numbers are artificially inflated as the most profitable American companies pay virtually no tax in the US. Google pays 2.4% taxes in the us, while at the same time paying 25% taxes in the UK

Why is it that the richer you are, the more you're able to afford higher taxes, the less you have to pay?

This money that almost every other nation except America gets would go a long ways towards balancing the budget and would be more effective at getting more money then cutting welfare off or stopping school lunches.

Regarding the OP, there's not much to say. No. That does not mean I think that something like a depo pregnancy shot is out of the question. We have babies funded to have babies. It's not the lack of the contraception, it's the lack of any accountability. The larger the family the larger the check. That has no equivalent for those working.

The cycle pf poverty literally breeding poverty needs to stop.

The funny thing is that data shows it's the opposite. The more well-off and educated women are, the less children they have. Therefore if we want to lower the birth rate we need to make more lower-class women well-off and educated.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It would be even more cost-effective to harvest their organs, and use the leftovers as animal feed.

 

[Kadarin]

I like the idea of denying welfare recipients the right to vote, as it neatly avoids the bread and circuses problem.