Anonymous
Post 04/14/2014 12:05     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:Y'all can argue about what a good idea this shit is all you want but I am EAGERLY looking forward to the day when y'all try to implement this bullshit. I will definitely be taking a day off and sitting my ass in front of the television as soon as word breaks that welfare recipients must be sterilized - you thought them riots after the Rodney King verdict was bad? Sheeeeiiiiit...lol


Good lord. Will people stop talking about sterilization. No one is saying that!
Anonymous
Post 04/14/2014 09:07     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:Y'all can argue about what a good idea this shit is all you want but I am EAGERLY looking forward to the day when y'all try to implement this bullshit. I will definitely be taking a day off and sitting my ass in front of the television as soon as word breaks that welfare recipients must be sterilized - you thought them riots after the Rodney King verdict was bad? Sheeeeiiiiit...lol


Yes, all of Appalachia and Utah will be on fire. It will take years for West Virginia to rebuild.
Anonymous
Post 04/14/2014 09:03     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Y'all can argue about what a good idea this shit is all you want but I am EAGERLY looking forward to the day when y'all try to implement this bullshit. I will definitely be taking a day off and sitting my ass in front of the television as soon as word breaks that welfare recipients must be sterilized - you thought them riots after the Rodney King verdict was bad? Sheeeeiiiiit...lol
Anonymous
Post 04/14/2014 08:39     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote: kids, it becomes a job to them.)

My maternity leave was unpaid and no one is giving me money to raise my kids. We work to pay our bills. Why do others get a free ride?


Because they are infants and small children who deserve to be fed and housed even if their parents act without thinking or simply make choices we disagree with.Because a hungry or homeless 3rd grader can't take full advantage of a free pubic education and is likely to be a less productive citizen as a result.


Why do the parents constantly get to act without thinking and make the stupidest choices over and over again? Why are there never any consequences or interventions? When in the hell is this cycle going to end?


And you aim to end the cycle by starving to death the children born after the cutoff?
Anonymous
Post 04/14/2014 08:37     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:What about people with degenerative diseases...shouldn't we also prohibit folks with cancer or multiple sclerosis from having kids because similarly, they may have difficulty affording them and even worse they may die while the kid is still in need of adult care


People with degenerative disease.... who are on welfare, is that what you mean? Because that is the topic of this thread. Not societal engineering (preventing fill-in-the-blank "undesireables" from reproducing). But whether a person should have to agree to be on birth control while accepting public assistance.
Anonymous
Post 04/13/2014 23:41     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:While I agree that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, I still feel that we are in our rights to not provide government assistance (tax dollars) to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). If youalready have kids and are down on your luck, absolutely you should get some help, but the second you pop out another mouth for us to feed, then your support ends.

Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Laws do exist to prevent the dumb from killing themselves, such as seatbelts, so why not restrictions to prevent a burden, however slight, on our tax dollars. Not to mention that the odds are high that the vicious cycle will continue.

I bring this up when I found out that a co-worker of mine's daughter, who is 17, is having another baby by another boyfriend. The coworker is 34. Imagine being a grandma at 33. The daughter is on welfare and at the same time was getting tattoso, piercings, nails, hair dyes and cell phones since she kept losing them. She lives in subsidized housing and has a roomate that she collects from, the roomate paying more than what the daughter is paying for rent.
The co-worker thinks it is great how smart her daughter is. Stupid breeds stupid.


Both the females and males need to be sterilized so they don't keep making babies that others have to pay for.

-Mother of two (I happen to be pro choice, but can't stand it when people are milking the system. If you knew your kid would die of starvation because no one would help, maybe you wouldn't have a kid you couldn't afford. But when the government will pay you for staying at home to take care of these kids, it becomes a job to them.)

My maternity leave was unpaid and no one is giving me money to raise my kids. We work to pay our bills. Why do others get a free ride?


Because they are infants and small children who deserve to be fed and housed even if their parents act without thinking or simply make choices we disagree with.Because a hungry or homeless 3rd grader can't take full advantage of a free pubic education and is likely to be a less productive citizen as a result.


Why do the parents constantly get to act without thinking and make the stupidest choices over and over again? Why are there never any consequences or interventions? When in the hell is this cycle going to end?


You make poverty sound like a walk in the park.
Anonymous
Post 04/13/2014 22:41     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:While I agree that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, I still feel that we are in our rights to not provide government assistance (tax dollars) to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). If youalready have kids and are down on your luck, absolutely you should get some help, but the second you pop out another mouth for us to feed, then your support ends.

Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Laws do exist to prevent the dumb from killing themselves, such as seatbelts, so why not restrictions to prevent a burden, however slight, on our tax dollars. Not to mention that the odds are high that the vicious cycle will continue.

I bring this up when I found out that a co-worker of mine's daughter, who is 17, is having another baby by another boyfriend. The coworker is 34. Imagine being a grandma at 33. The daughter is on welfare and at the same time was getting tattoso, piercings, nails, hair dyes and cell phones since she kept losing them. She lives in subsidized housing and has a roomate that she collects from, the roomate paying more than what the daughter is paying for rent.
The co-worker thinks it is great how smart her daughter is. Stupid breeds stupid.


Both the females and males need to be sterilized so they don't keep making babies that others have to pay for.

-Mother of two (I happen to be pro choice, but can't stand it when people are milking the system. If you knew your kid would die of starvation because no one would help, maybe you wouldn't have a kid you couldn't afford. But when the government will pay you for staying at home to take care of these kids, it becomes a job to them.)

My maternity leave was unpaid and no one is giving me money to raise my kids. We work to pay our bills. Why do others get a free ride?


Because they are infants and small children who deserve to be fed and housed even if their parents act without thinking or simply make choices we disagree with.Because a hungry or homeless 3rd grader can't take full advantage of a free pubic education and is likely to be a less productive citizen as a result.


Why do the parents constantly get to act without thinking and make the stupidest choices over and over again? Why are there never any consequences or interventions? When in the hell is this cycle going to end?
Anonymous
Post 04/13/2014 20:28     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:While I agree that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, I still feel that we are in our rights to not provide government assistance (tax dollars) to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). If youalready have kids and are down on your luck, absolutely you should get some help, but the second you pop out another mouth for us to feed, then your support ends.

Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Laws do exist to prevent the dumb from killing themselves, such as seatbelts, so why not restrictions to prevent a burden, however slight, on our tax dollars. Not to mention that the odds are high that the vicious cycle will continue.

I bring this up when I found out that a co-worker of mine's daughter, who is 17, is having another baby by another boyfriend. The coworker is 34. Imagine being a grandma at 33. The daughter is on welfare and at the same time was getting tattoso, piercings, nails, hair dyes and cell phones since she kept losing them. She lives in subsidized housing and has a roomate that she collects from, the roomate paying more than what the daughter is paying for rent.
The co-worker thinks it is great how smart her daughter is. Stupid breeds stupid.


Both the females and males need to be sterilized so they don't keep making babies that others have to pay for.

-Mother of two (I happen to be pro choice, but can't stand it when people are milking the system. If you knew your kid would die of starvation because no one would help, maybe you wouldn't have a kid you couldn't afford. But when the government will pay you for staying at home to take care of these kids, it becomes a job to them.)

My maternity leave was unpaid and no one is giving me money to raise my kids. We work to pay our bills. Why do others get a free ride?


Because they are infants and small children who deserve to be fed and housed even if their parents act without thinking or simply make choices we disagree with.Because a hungry or homeless 3rd grader can't take full advantage of a free pubic education and is likely to be a less productive citizen as a result.
Anonymous
Post 04/13/2014 20:25     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:While I agree that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, I still feel that we are in our rights to not provide government assistance (tax dollars) to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). If youalready have kids and are down on your luck, absolutely you should get some help, but the second you pop out another mouth for us to feed, then your support ends.

Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Laws do exist to prevent the dumb from killing themselves, such as seatbelts, so why not restrictions to prevent a burden, however slight, on our tax dollars. Not to mention that the odds are high that the vicious cycle will continue.

I bring this up when I found out that a co-worker of mine's daughter, who is 17, is having another baby by another boyfriend. The coworker is 34. Imagine being a grandma at 33. The daughter is on welfare and at the same time was getting tattoso, piercings, nails, hair dyes and cell phones since she kept losing them. She lives in subsidized housing and has a roomate that she collects from, the roomate paying more than what the daughter is paying for rent.
The co-worker thinks it is great how smart her daughter is. Stupid breeds stupid.


Both the females and males need to be sterilized so they don't keep making babies that others have to pay for.

-Mother of two (I happen to be pro choice, but can't stand it when people are milking the system. If you knew your kid would die of starvation because no one would help, maybe you wouldn't have a kid you couldn't afford. But when the government will pay you for staying at home to take care of these kids, it becomes a job to them.)

My maternity leave was unpaid and no one is giving me money to raise my kids. We work to pay our bills. Why do others get a free ride?
Anonymous
Post 04/12/2014 14:27     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:What about people with degenerative diseases...shouldn't we also prohibit folks with cancer or multiple sclerosis from having kids because similarly, they may have difficulty affording them and even worse they may die while the kid is still in need of adult care
well
I suppose those kids can also be put up for adoption
And maybe the cancer patients could be euthanized so that medicare does not need to pay, and their organs for organ donation. And the kids sterilized because they have inherited the bad genes.
Anonymous
Post 04/12/2014 07:13     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
What about people with degenerative diseases...shouldn't we also prohibit folks with cancer or multiple sclerosis from having kids because similarly, they may have difficulty affording them and even worse they may die while the kid is still in need of adult care
Anonymous
Post 04/09/2014 23:19     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Anonymous wrote:You get ZERO increase for any kids once you start welfare. We give free birth control and they can put your children up for adoption if they "forgot" to use their free birth control and can't afford another. Also once you start welfare, They need to start a sliding scale and give people 5yrs max. Wean their lazy asses off.


As stated many, many times earlier, about half the states already have that zero increase rule in place.

It is pretty funny that you are demanding a sliding scale and a 5 year max, since that is already the law. You must be pleased to know that your wish of weaning lazy asses is already in place.

Thank you for supporting free birth control. If we did this, we could cut the rate of abortion dramatically.

Lastly, there is no ethical way on earth to separate children from their mother, merely because the government has decided that they have too many.
Anonymous
Post 04/09/2014 17:26     Subject: Re:Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? W
I'm against REQUIRING people not to have children while on welfare. That seems a little too harsh and would never pass muster. I am all for HEAVILY encouraging women with children who are on welfare and below the poverty line to get on a reliable form of birth control. I'd have no problem with a proposal to pay a lump sum in exchange for getting an IUD, Norplant device or a Depo shot each quarter. This idea was floated in the '90s when Norplant first came out and met with serious resistance at the time, but 10+ years later, I'm guessing more people would be open to it.
Anonymous
Post 04/07/2014 10:55     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
You get ZERO increase for any kids once you start welfare. We give free birth control and they can put your children up for adoption if they "forgot" to use their free birth control and can't afford another. Also once you start welfare, They need to start a sliding scale and give people 5yrs max. Wean their lazy asses off.
Anonymous
Post 04/07/2014 09:54     Subject: Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why
Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare?

Hmmm...

Required how?
Are we talking about forcing recipients to take some sort of birth control as a prerequisite for payment?
How would we implement and enforce that?

Is this prerequisite only for women?
Are we talking about solely forcing female welfare recipients to stop having more kids than they can afford or would this apply to men also who are on welfare and making babies?
How would we implement and enforce that?

How would this law/rule be imposed without violating individual rights?
Putting the basic human right to reproduce aside, what about religion?
If someone's faith prohibits them from taking birth control medication would they be denied welfare because of their refusal to compromise their beliefs?

Lots of questions surrounding this.
Too many questions that don't have simple answers.
I don't see it happening.
In broad theory it sounds like a great idea but when you get down and dirty into the specifics and the logistics of the matter its just too prickly to push forward.