Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

It's not luck or random chance. It's called values and responsibility. Pass it on.

Name for me one child who has picked his or her parents out.

It's not about picking parents out. It's about getting your shit together if you are going to be a parent. You shouldn't be having kids if you can't properly support or raise them, [/quote

You just don't get it, do you? How obtuse can you be? I'm taking the kids' perspective here. The perspective of a child who is already in this world, born to imperfect parents. What is a civil society going to do once the parents have already brought children into this world whether or not they could properly support or raise them? What if you'd been born to parents who didn't make enough money to support you properly? Are you saying you'd have been fine with the state taking away help from your family, so that you would go hungry, or be homeless, in order to teach your parents a lesson about responsibility? Children can't force their parents to change. They can't get jobs to fend for themselves. And yet you want to punish children because their parents are struggling.

You lucked out in being born to parents who were able to support you. Many children are not so lucky and are born into poverty. I'm talking about their world and what you would do about it. From what you've written above it seems you are fine with letting them starve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

It's not luck or random chance. It's called values and responsibility. Pass it on.

Name for me one child who has picked his or her parents out.

It's not about picking parents out. It's about getting your shit together if you are going to be a parent. You shouldn't be having kids if you can't properly support or raise them, [/quote

You just don't get it, do you? How obtuse can you be? I'm taking the kids' perspective here. The perspective of a child who is already in this world, born to imperfect parents. What is a civil society going to do once the parents have already brought children into this world whether or not they could properly support or raise them? What if you'd been born to parents who didn't make enough money to support you properly? Are you saying you'd have been fine with the state taking away help from your family, so that you would go hungry, or be homeless, in order to teach your parents a lesson about responsibility? Children can't force their parents to change. They can't get jobs to fend for themselves. And yet you want to punish children because their parents are struggling.

You lucked out in being born to parents who were able to support you. Many children are not so lucky and are born into poverty. I'm talking about their world and what you would do about it. From what you've written above it seems you are fine with letting them starve.

Innate parental instinct will prevent that child from starving. We may frown upon the means and methods parents go to...panhandle, dig through garbage, theft, prostitution, etc...but nonetheless whether stinking rich or filthy poor parents have done and will do anything and everything for the sake of their children. The question is whether society is willing to go so far as well by surrendering more tax dollars, sponsoring at-risk families, initiating more programs and community organizations to help the disadvantaged, etc...or are we content with the ideology that its every man/woman/child for himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

This has already been decided. The right to procreate (and the right to use/not use birth control) is a fundamental right. The right to tax is a right of the federal government. Therefore, tax payers have to pay even if they find it reprehensible people on welfare continue to have children and don't use birth control. Too bad, so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

This has already been decided. The right to procreate (and the right to use/not use birth control) is a fundamental right. The right to tax is a right of the federal government. Therefore, tax payers have to pay even if they find it reprehensible people on welfare continue to have children and don't use birth control. Too bad, so sad.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

It's not luck or random chance. It's called values and responsibility. Pass it on.

Name for me one child who has picked his or her parents out.

It's not about picking parents out. It's about getting your shit together if you are going to be a parent. You shouldn't be having kids if you can't properly support or raise them, [/quote

You just don't get it, do you? How obtuse can you be? I'm taking the kids' perspective here. The perspective of a child who is already in this world, born to imperfect parents. What is a civil society going to do once the parents have already brought children into this world whether or not they could properly support or raise them? What if you'd been born to parents who didn't make enough money to support you properly? Are you saying you'd have been fine with the state taking away help from your family, so that you would go hungry, or be homeless, in order to teach your parents a lesson about responsibility? Children can't force their parents to change. They can't get jobs to fend for themselves. And yet you want to punish children because their parents are struggling.

You lucked out in being born to parents who were able to support you. Many children are not so lucky and are born into poverty. I'm talking about their world and what you would do about it. From what you've written above it seems you are fine with letting them starve.

Innate parental instinct will prevent that child from starving. We may frown upon the means and methods parents go to...panhandle, dig through garbage, theft, prostitution, etc...but nonetheless whether stinking rich or filthy poor parents have done and will do anything and everything for the sake of their children. The question is whether society is willing to go so far as well by surrendering more tax dollars, sponsoring at-risk families, initiating more programs and community organizations to help the disadvantaged, etc...or are we content with the ideology that its every man/woman/child for himself?

No civilized society is content to let children go hungry in order to save taxpayers a few dollars, and you are wrong that children in this country do not go hungry. Read through some of the threads on this forum about growing up poor to open your eyes. Go talk to people who work for child welfare agencies or food banks. Hunger is still a huge issue in the US. It is not okay that we would let parents resort to prostitution and digging through garbage and theft to provide something for their children. Funding programs that help those who struggle benefits society in general. I would much rather pay extra tax dollars to help keep the poverty level down than to deal with the consequences of rampant poverty (including higher crime rates, problems in schools, etc. etc.)

[Anonymous]

Innate parental instinct will prevent that child from starving. We may frown upon the means and methods parents go to...panhandle, dig through garbage, theft, prostitution, etc...but nonetheless whether stinking rich or filthy poor parents have done and will do anything and everything for the sake of their children. The question is whether society is willing to go so far as well by surrendering more tax dollars, sponsoring at-risk families, initiating more programs and community organizations to help the disadvantaged, etc...or are we content with the ideology that its every man/woman/child for himself?

Remember when I said that no public policy should be based on "don't have intercourse"? No public policy should be based on the assumption that everyone has "innate parental instinct" either. Because a lot of people just fucking don't. Some people suck. And I don't want to live in a world where their kids suffer, even more than they already do, for that. Our government should help feed, shelter, and educate poor children, and by necessity, that means giving their perhaps incompetent, shitty parents access to our money. There is a a lot of other tax money that's being wasted that can be reclaimed if that is the concern. For example, subsidies for oil companies.

[Anonymous]

Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Yes, let's make sure the poor don't fuck but turn a blind eye to wall street, bank bailouts, and the f-35.

Seriously, can't see the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

Living in poverty sucks. Hard. But the system that allows poverty to perpetuate includes corporate welfare and massive layers of unnecessary beuracracy- including military bases, administrative personnel, and weapons platforms- that cost taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars.

Because of its persistent inability to tally its accounts, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China's economic output last year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118

But go on and keep getting mad about that $200 check the welfare mother gets instead of the million dollar mansion next door paid for by you and me.

[Anonymous]

The practical impact of the Pentagon's accounting dysfunction is evident at the Defense Logistics Agency, which buys, stores and ships much of the Defense Department's supplies - everything from airplane parts to zippers for uniforms.

It has way too much stuff.

"We have about $14 billion of inventory for lots of reasons, and probably half of that is excess to what we need," Navy Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, the director of the DLA, said at an August 7, 2013, meeting with aviation industry executives, as reported on the agency's web site.

And the DLA keeps buying more of what it already has too much of. A document the Pentagon supplied to Congress shows that as of September 30, 2012, the DLA and the military services had $733 million worth of supplies and equipment on order that was already stocked in excess amounts on warehouse shelves. That figure was up 21% from $609 million a year earlier. The Defense Department defines "excess inventory" as anything more than a three-year supply.

Consider the "vehicular control arm," part of the front suspension on the military's ubiquitous High Mobility Multipurpose Vehicles, or Humvees. As of November 2008, the DLA had 15,000 of the parts in stock, equal to a 14-year supply, according to an April 2013 Pentagon inspector general's report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

EXACTLY!! Poverty is a choice and obviously the 50 million people in the United States living in poverty are inane idiots who choose to enjoy the fun and freedom of irresponsibility and unaccountability.
By no means whatsoever should we consider rewarding people for having such audacious attitudes and lethargic lifestyles. By no means should we continue coddling these freeloaders who refuse to work and refuse to secure decent food and shelter for themselves and their children. Either these people grow up and learn to make better decisions or they wallow in the misery of their own making without the aid of their government - yes, yes I know they're citizens and many impoverished people were taxpayers before whatever unfortunate circumstance led them down their current road of deliberate laziness and yes many impoverished people were soldiers and fought for this country but that's beside the point.
They chose this life and they must suffer.

[Anonymous]

Maybe if women started realizing that they shouldn't spread their legs for a man who isn't able and willing to provide for her and her kids, things would start to change. A.) there'd be a lot less teen pregnancies, single moms, out-of-wedlock kids, et cetera and B.) men would have to start getting their shit together and get themselves a solid living and start doing the right thing if they want a piece of ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

Being poor sounds like a walk in the park, the way you tell it.

[Anonymous]

The other thing is the financial impact on communities if welfare was cut off. Poorer communities would see even more businesses close, even more crime. I think most people would agree that people should not get paid to do nothing. But the anger at poor people is disproportionate to the actual cost to the government. But no congressman would ever vote to close an unnecessary military base in their district because it would have a devastating impact on the local economy.

See the parallel?

Lots of money in DC/N.VA from military contracts and other federal spending that is most likely unnecessary. LOOK AROUND YOU. Where do you think all this money comes from? Please read the Reuters article I linked before. $700M in surplus military parts that are not needed. 14 years worth of Humvee parts, sitting on a shelf, unused, not needed. Do a little reading on the F-35. Why not cut back those contracts? Oh, wait- that might affect some of your jobs. Corporate welfare and TRILLIONS of dollars to white collars is fine, even though its the true reason our country is bankrupt.

Got it.

Go back to hating poor black women who do nothing but screw all day.