Home› A Moving Train

Population Control and Gov't Assistance

yield2meyield2me Posts: 1,291
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Curious about your thoughts on this issue. Seems to me that in this country our government assistance programs allow for people to have as many children as they wish and the tax payers pick up the bill. Should there be a limit on the number of children you can have and still get gov't assistance? Should there be stipulations such as keeping a steady job or making sure that your children stay in school before you are eligible for government money? What do you guys think?
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Personally, I think we should do the opposite. We should limit the amount of assistance the government should get from its citizens.
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    yield2me wrote:
    Curious about your thoughts on this issue. Seems to me that in this country our government assistance programs allow for people to have as many children as they wish and the tax payers pick up the bill. Should there be a limit on the number of children you can have and still get gov't assistance? Should there be stipulations such as keeping a steady job or making sure that your children stay in school before you are eligible for government money? What do you guys think?

    People who can no longer support their current number of children and are likely to have more children should have their tubes tied.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People who can no longer support their current number of children and are likely to have more children should have their tubes tied.


    How about the old snip for the gentlemen? They don't help to contribute to the making of a child. Sean Kemp is a good example!
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People who can no longer support their current number of children and are likely to have more children should have their tubes tied.
    Do you think it should be backed up legally? So that individuals are forced to have their tubes tied? How do you decide they are "likely to have more children"? Do you think we should force fathers who do not take care of their children to have vasectomies?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People who can no longer support their current number of children and are likely to have more children should have their tubes tied.

    People who support forced surgeries should have their heads examined, no pun intended.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    angelica wrote:
    Do you think we should force fathers who do not take care of their children to have vasectomies?
    Yes.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    Remove the economic incentive to have more children.

    Create an education program that forces all individuals over the age of 14 that receive gov't aid to attend that covers all the issues that lead to needing governemnt assitance...sex ed, job training opportunities, life skills courses...etc.

    Up front capital investment but will reduce the costs of the program longterm.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    surferdude wrote:
    Yes.

    Sweet fancy moses......
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    surferdude wrote:
    Yes.
    While I can get behind the underlying sentiment, do you really think this type of control of people is a good thing, ultimately?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    even flow? wrote:
    How about the old snip for the gentlemen? They don't help to contribute to the making of a child. Sean Kemp is a good example!

    Sure, why not?
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Sure, why not?
    Aren't you the guy adamantly opposed to having your basic liberties taken from you?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    angelica wrote:
    Do you think it should be backed up legally? So that individuals are forced to have their tubes tied? How do you decide they are "likely to have more children"? Do you think we should force fathers who do not take care of their children to have vasectomies?

    People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

    But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

    The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Sure, why not?

    Why not? Ok, let me take a shot at that:

    You've signed on to forcing another human being's body to be physically altered based on a subjective judgment that he does not "take care of his kids". Now, suppose I decide that you can't take care of your own body because you ate at McDonalds last week. Should I have the right to sew your mouth shut? Or, how about if I decide that you're not a pious enough Christian because you didn't tithe? Should I be able to push you from a cliff and leave your judgment "up to God"????? Or let's say that the surgeon in your little scheme fucks up and botches the vasectomy. Should I be able to chop off his hands?
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why not? Ok, let me take a shot at that:

    You've signed on to forcing another human being's body to be physically altered based on a subjective judgment that he does not "take care of his kids". Now, suppose I decide that you can't take care of your own body because you ate at McDonalds last week. Should I have the right to sew your mouth shut? Or, how about if I decide that you're not a pious enough Christian because you didn't tithe? Should I be able to push you from a cliff and leave your judgment "up to God"????? Or let's say that the surgeon in your little scheme fucks up and botches the vasectomy. Should I be able to chop off his hands?

    People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

    But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

    The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

    But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

    The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.

    Fortuntely, as many problems as our governments have, they also have psychological information on humans. This awareness binds their hands in many ways, as they are in the business of keeping power and not losing it. Fortunately, they understand some basic human principles and what humans will tolerate and what they will rise up against (for the most part).
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People who can no longer support their current number of children and are likely to have more children should have their tubes tied.


    Forced sterilization. You never stop amazing me.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    Forced sterilization. You never stop amazing me.
    I think he's trying to pass it off as our choice if we want a government handout, but the average person can read between the lines. Condescending to your people in basic terms doesn't work too well among educated people.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    mammasan wrote:
    Forced sterilization. You never stop amazing me.

    While in practice and reality I don't agree with it....

    It's not really forced, because no one is forcing them to ask for governmental assistance...they are choosing and it would be their choice.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • yield2meyield2me Posts: 1,291
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

    But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

    The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.


    I agree with this completely.
    “May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
  • yield2meyield2me Posts: 1,291
    This problem seems like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. My wife is a teacher and she tells me about her kids in her classes (urban high school). When she asks the kids where they want to go to college many of them tell her that they'll just have kids and live off the government! What kind of message are we sending to these kids?
    “May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

    But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

    The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.

    The "easy answers" to my questions above are, respectively, "don't eat at McDonalds", "tithe", and "don't fuck up the vasectomy". But "easy answers" don't give the government the right to forcibly alter people's bodies. Furthermore, there's a very big difference between "you can't have anymore babies" and forced surgery.

    Look, I'm going to be optomistic and think you don't understand the can of worms you're opening here.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    yield2me wrote:
    This problem seems like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. My wife is a teacher and she tells me about her kids in her classes (urban high school). When she asks the kids where they want to go to college many of them tell her that they'll just have kids and live off the government! What kind of message are we sending to these kids?

    Oh sweet Jesus.

    The "elephant in the room" is the insanity of these services to begin with and how they pit men against each other.

    Do you not understand that you're suggesting these children should not exist, and justifying it by "the message" we're sending them???

    If you want to remove the government services themselves, by all means I'll support you. But if you want the government in the business of forcing people to forfeit their fundamental rights at the state's discretion, I can only ask you how you expect to hold onto your rights?
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The "easy answers" to my questions above are, respectively, "don't eat at McDonalds", "tithe", and "don't fuck up the vasectomy". But "easy answers" don't give the government the right to forcibly alter people's bodies. Furthermore, there's a very big difference between "you can't have anymore babies" and forced surgery.

    Look, I'm going to be optomistic and think you don't understand the can of worms you're opening here.

    According to my idea, the government would have no right to alter anyone's body unless someone asks the government to. To get assistance for their massive litter of children, I'd say it's a fair compromise. How the hell should society keep paying for all of their kids?

    That said, I don't support aborting babies - just keeping them from being born in the first place.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    cincybearcat wrote:
    While in practice and reality I don't agree with it....

    It's not really forced, because no one is forcing them to ask for governmental assistance...they are choosing and it would be their choice.

    Please think about this for a minute. "Government assistance" is not always asked for, and that's the fundamental flaw of your logic here.
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Please think about this for a minute. "Government assistance" is not always asked for, and that's the fundamental flaw of your logic here.

    If you're saying that we should get rid of government welfare and entitlements, I agree completely. Let's get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal welfare programs.

    But, if we are stuck with them, then I see my idea as an option.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    According to my idea, the government would have no right to alter anyone's body unless someone asks the government to. To get assistance for their massive litter of children, I'd say it's a fair compromise. How the hell should society keep paying for all of their kids?

    They shouldn't have to, and the services themselves create these kind of insane ideas. But you cannot take the leap from that to encouraging or forcing sterilization.

    Look, you're proposing two very dangerous philosophies here:

    1. That the act of having a child can be immoral.
    2. That the state may bargain your rights for its services.
    That said, I don't support aborting babies - just keeping them from being born in the first place.

    Sigh......then you're no different than the leeches and looters you're railing against.
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    While people are looking through the lens of "I don't want my taxpaying dollars going there", it seems people are missing the very basics. Off the top of my head, some being "ojectivity", "understanding" and "awareness". A small-minded ego-centered view is very different than having an unbiased problem-solving goal.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    If you're saying that we should get rid of government welfare and entitlements, I agree completely. Let's get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal welfare programs.

    Very much, yes.
    But, if we are stuck with them, then I see my idea as an option.

    No. Two evils cannot make good.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sweet fancy moses......
    I know it's irrational but I have a serious hate on for guys who don't step up to the plate and be a good parent. After I see the aftermath in the kids lives I really don't care about the father's rights.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • yield2meyield2me Posts: 1,291
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Oh sweet Jesus.

    The "elephant in the room" is the insanity of these services to begin with and how they pit men against each other.

    Do you not understand that you're suggesting these children should not exist, and justifying it by "the message" we're sending them???

    If you want to remove the government services themselves, by all means I'll support you. But if you want the government in the business of forcing people to forfeit their fundamental rights at the state's discretion, I can only ask you how you expect to hold onto your rights?


    I'm not suggesting that these children should not exist. What I'm saying is that we should not enable these kids to have babies for the purpose of collecting a paycheck which is what is happening. I think there should be stipulations on the programs themselves. People seeking gov't assistance should have to hold a job, or their kids should have to complete high school to be eligible for the money etc. Those are just examples, not saying that is exactly what should be done but there should be some sort of accountability to receiving free money from the government.
    “May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
Sign In or Register to comment.