Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 04-04-2013, 05:54 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by samfloor View Post
I think they are proposing forced sterilization.
Again, not FORCING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING!! Noone forces me to come to work, but if I don't I don't get my paycheck. Same thing for recieving a check from the government. If someone cannot support themselves I don't understand why in the world someone thinks that they should MAKE KIDS?
I know people villainize this idea of birth control as a condition of being subsidized but I have yet to hear why we as taxpayers should pay folks to have kids and then have to hand over more money.... WHY IS THAT A GOOD IDEA??

I think that it is irresponsible to have more kids if someone cannot support themselves. Also, if we (as taxpayers) have to support them (by their CHOICE), then we are taking responsibility of these folks. Only then, it becomes our place to also take responsibility of preventing them from making a bad situation worse. ESPECIALLY if it causes us to have to subsidize even more.

Also, as much as some folks hate the thought of birth control as a condition of recieving money, I would bet that you give about 15-20 years and poverty would be reduced DRASTICALLY! You would essentially stop a cycle. Either people who wanted to have kids would go out and get a job/education, or they just wouldn't have kids that would grow up to collect....
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 06:08 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post


I don't believe we should FORCE anyone to do anything. However, I think it is prudent to having conditions to handouts. One of which, would be to NOT CREATE DEPENDANTS WHEN ONE IS A DEPENDANT THEMSELVES.
To rephrase, "We'll help you if you need it, but if you do anything to increase that need, we'll cut you off."

That's #4 on my list: Leave them alone, let them figure out how to survive by whatever means they choose to survive. Remember, the people we're talking about have demonstrated that they are incapable of doing so legitimately, so they will be turning to illegitimate means. They will become criminals simply to survive.

That's what you're advocating here.
Quote:

Some folks on here are rephrasing it to make it sound like some sort of genocide behavior. Ridiculous. This is exactly why this country is doomed to fall by the way of other nations past...

If we continue to ENCOURAGE reproduction when it is financially ill advised for the individual who exactly are we benefitting? (except of course, the politicians that buy vo........... Er, give out these entitlements...)
You're making it sound like poor people get rich by having kids. The old "welfare mom" stereotype. Newsflash, the kids cost more than the extra subsidies. The "incentives" you're talking about don't even exist.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 06:25 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Again, not FORCING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING!! Noone forces me to come to work, but if I don't I don't get my paycheck. Same thing for recieving a check from the government. If someone cannot support themselves I don't understand why in the world someone thinks that they should MAKE KIDS?
I know people villainize this idea of birth control as a condition of being subsidized but I have yet to hear why we as taxpayers should pay folks to have kids and then have to hand over more money.... WHY IS THAT A GOOD IDEA??
The vast majority of people who receive direct government aid do so for less than a year in their entire lives. The vast majority of these people end up paying more in taxes than they ever collect in subsidies. On the balance, the overwhelming majority of these people are an economic benefit, even though at some point in their lives they temporarily took more than they gave.
Quote:

I think that it is irresponsible to have more kids if someone cannot support themselves. Also, if we (as taxpayers) have to support them (by their CHOICE), then we are taking responsibility of these folks. Only then, it becomes our place to also take responsibility of preventing them from making a bad situation worse. ESPECIALLY if it causes us to have to subsidize even more.

Also, as much as some folks hate the thought of birth control as a condition of recieving money, I would bet that you give about 15-20 years and poverty would be reduced DRASTICALLY! You would essentially stop a cycle. Either people who wanted to have kids would go out and get a job/education, or they just wouldn't have kids that would grow up to collect....
#4: Ignore them. If they want to survive, they can turn to crime. Also, a passive form of #2: Kill them. Oh, I'm sorry - not "kill them". What I meant was "Stop the cycle".

You bet that 15 to 20 years of birth control as a condition of receiving money will "DRASTICALLY" reduce poverty. If there was a moral way of taking that bet, I would.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 07:55 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
The vast majority of people who receive direct government aid do so for less than a year in their entire lives. The vast majority of these people end up paying more in taxes than they ever collect in subsidies. On the balance, the overwhelming majority of these people are an economic benefit, even though at some point in their lives they temporarily took more than they gave.


#4: Ignore them. If they want to survive, they can turn to crime. Also, a passive form of #2: Kill them. Oh, I'm sorry - not "kill them". What I meant was "Stop the cycle".

You bet that 15 to 20 years of birth control as a condition of receiving money will "DRASTICALLY" reduce poverty. If there was a moral way of taking that bet, I would.
I have yet to hear why it is a good idea for someone who cannot support themselves to have kids.

Also, if it is such a short term situation then it would be use of birth control for the short term... So what's the big deal??
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 09:19 AM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I have yet to hear why it is a good idea for someone who cannot support themselves to have kids.

Also, if it is such a short term situation then it would be use of birth control for the short term... So what's the big deal??
Who gets to make the decision on who can have kids? Who decides who get birth control. You know many conservatives are against providing birth control, but want to limit children.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 09:33 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by samfloor View Post
Who gets to make the decision on who can have kids? Who decides who get birth control. You know many conservatives are against providing birth control, but want to limit children.
Sigh..... Again, noone is deciding anything for anyone else... It would be a condition of recieving a check. Noone is forcing them to take the check. My employer doesn't FORCE me to put on steel toed shoes, my employer doesn't FORCE me to adhere to other rules... These are things I chose to do because they are conditions of my employment. How hard is that to understand??? I CHOOSE these things.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 10:00 AM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
So, if they are using birth control and she still gets pregnant, she either has an abortion or loses her aid? Or are you saying that they should abstain from sex?

(As a side note, we weren't getting any aid, but my youngest was born 8 years after my wife had a tubal ligation)
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 10:37 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by samfloor View Post
So, if they are using birth control and she still gets pregnant, she either has an abortion or loses her aid? Or are you saying that they should abstain from sex?

(As a side note, we weren't getting any aid, but my youngest was born 8 years after my wife had a tubal ligation)
Many are getting abortions now. I am not for killing kids, no... Also, I don't think losing aid is a good idea either.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 11:23 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I have yet to hear why it is a good idea for someone who cannot support themselves to have kids.

Also, if it is such a short term situation then it would be use of birth control for the short term... So what's the big deal??
What problem do you think you're solving? I was under the impression that you were trying to solve a "problem" with incentivizing pregnancy, a problem that doesn't actually exist. So, your "solution" would just seem to be more government regulation, more red-tape to wade through. How does your "solution" help anything?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 11:28 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Many are getting abortions now. I am not for killing kids, no... Also, I don't think losing aid is a good idea either.
So basically, you would create a law that is completely unenforceable.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.