The only Gubmint Entitlement Program I'd be happy to pay taxes for.

[PredFan]

The only entitlement program that I would agree with would be to give totally free (iow, paid for by the taxpayer) vasectomys and tubal ligations. In the log run, sterilizations would actually save the taxpayer a shit-ton of money.

I would pay for that.

 

[occupied]

Eugenics, really?

 

[PredFan]

Eugenics, really?

Where in there did it say anything about forcing anyone to get the surgery?

 

[occupied]

Eugenics, really?

Where in there did it say anything about forcing anyone to get the surgery?

You didn't but that's what it would lead to, not even opposed to it in principle as long as it could never be used as a condition of qualifying for any other program. It would be a hell of a lot harder to get it past the Christians than anyone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Eugenics, really?

Where in there did it say anything about forcing anyone to get the surgery?

You didn't but that's what it would lead to, not even opposed to it in principle as long as it could never be used as a condition of qualifying for any other program. It would be a hell of a lot harder to get it past the Christians than anyone else.

That's the Left: never letting facts get in the way.
for the record, I would oppose such programs but would support programs that change the incentives to have out of wedlock children, i.e. eliminate welfare as we know it.

 

[PredFan]

Eugenics, really?

Where in there did it say anything about forcing anyone to get the surgery?

You didn't but that's what it would lead to, not even opposed to it in principle as long as it could never be used as a condition of qualifying for any other program. It would be a hell of a lot harder to get it past the Christians than anyone else.

That is your opinion based on well...not much.

 

[PredFan]

Where in there did it say anything about forcing anyone to get the surgery?

You didn't but that's what it would lead to, not even opposed to it in principle as long as it could never be used as a condition of qualifying for any other program. It would be a hell of a lot harder to get it past the Christians than anyone else.

That's the Left: never letting facts get in the way.
for the record, I would oppose such programs but would support programs that change the incentives to have out of wedlock children, i.e. eliminate welfare as we know it.

You would oppose vasectomies and tubal ligations? Neither one of those kill babies for even fertilized eggs. I know it's an entitlement program but it is one that will actually save the taxpayer money down the road.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didn't but that's what it would lead to, not even opposed to it in principle as long as it could never be used as a condition of qualifying for any other program. It would be a hell of a lot harder to get it past the Christians than anyone else.

That's the Left: never letting facts get in the way.
for the record, I would oppose such programs but would support programs that change the incentives to have out of wedlock children, i.e. eliminate welfare as we know it.

You would oppose vasectomies and tubal ligations? Neither one of those kill babies for even fertilized eggs. I know it's an entitlement program but it is one that will actually save the taxpayer money down the road.

I believe people are an asset, not a liability.
That said, the only reason to do something like that is to fix a problem that could more easily be fixed in other ways.

 

[WillowTree]

I think the American taxpayer should be on the hook for only one kid.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the American taxpayer should be on the hook for only one kid.

I think they should be on the hook for no kid. Having kids is the parents' responsibility. If we subsidize having kids, we'll have more at taxpayer expense.