Should welfare recipients be allowed to breed?

[Spoonman]

No I would just refuse additional benefits.

It's called personal responsibility people.

I have no problem helping a person truly in need but I will not help anyone who is intentionally scamming me.

if a woman with 2 kids finds herself in a dire situation, then she should receive some aid to shelter and feed her kids until such a time as she can manage herself. But to say that she can enter the system with 2 kids and have unlimited benefit increases by having more kids is ******* moronic.

I understand your emotionally charged sentiment.

But at the end of the day what you're effectively saying is **** the children.

How did people survive before governmental welfare programs?

They did this thing called working for a living.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand your emotionally charged sentiment.

But at the end of the day what you're effectively saying is **** the children.

How did people survive before governmental welfare programs?

They obviously didn't that's why there are so many people on the dole now.

So before the 1930's poor people didn't survive.

 

[Flopper]

Well, pretty much everybody gets 'welfare' of one form or another - so let's quit beating around the bush. We should come up with solid state policy that applies to everyone. I think we could probably do something like this in the form of a tax 'incentive'. Or penalty - or, well, I guess we could call it whatever is politically expedient at the moment. The basic idea would be to penalize people who have kids (or, reward those who don't). And then maybe some kind of penalty on people who have dumb kids. Or, likewise, a reward for those who have smart kids.

We simply must get control of the situation. It's getting out of hand!

You’re right everyone gets welfare in one form or another. We pay people to have kids and reward those that grow old with tax exemptions. We give rewards for living and rewards for dying. The government will help you stay healthy and help you when you get sick. They will give free coloring books to the kiddies and free admission to national parks to seniors. They give tax breaks to investors that make money and tax breaks to investors who lose money. They will even file your taxes for you for free.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand your emotionally charged sentiment.

But at the end of the day what you're effectively saying is **** the children.

How did people survive before governmental welfare programs?

They did this thing called working for a living.

A novel idea!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, pretty much everybody gets 'welfare' of one form or another - so let's quit beating around the bush. We should come up with solid state policy that applies to everyone. I think we could probably do something like this in the form of a tax 'incentive'. Or penalty - or, well, I guess we could call it whatever is politically expedient at the moment. The basic idea would be to penalize people who have kids (or, reward those who don't). And then maybe some kind of penalty on people who have dumb kids. Or, likewise, a reward for those who have smart kids.

We simply must get control of the situation. It's getting out of hand!

You’re right everyone gets welfare in one form or another. We pay people to have kids and reward those that grow old with tax exemptions. We give rewards for living and rewards for dying. The government will help you stay healthy and help you when you get sick. They will give free coloring books to the kiddies and free admission to national parks to seniors. They give tax breaks to investors that make money and tax breaks to investors who lose money. They will even file your taxes for you for free.

Those that have grown old more than likely paid into the system all their working life.

 

[Zona]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their breeding reflects it. They should not be able to breed. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to breed for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to breed again.

Note: Thread inspired by kaz

I am with you, they should abort all children spawned by welfare recipients.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their breeding reflects it. They should not be able to breed. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to breed for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to breed again.

Note: Thread inspired by kaz

How is social security "welfare?"

If you crash you car, is it "welfare" when the insurance company fixes the car?

Last I checked, SS was a forced retirement plan, which we all have to pay into.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their breeding reflects it. They should not be able to breed. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to breed for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to breed again.

Note: Thread inspired by kaz

I am with you, they should abort all children spawned by welfare recipients.

I like the use of the word breed in the OP title, but spawn is pretty good satire too. Maybe "replicate" would be another good one.

 

[Spoonman]

Well, pretty much everybody gets 'welfare' of one form or another - so let's quit beating around the bush. We should come up with solid state policy that applies to everyone. I think we could probably do something like this in the form of a tax 'incentive'. Or penalty - or, well, I guess we could call it whatever is politically expedient at the moment. The basic idea would be to penalize people who have kids (or, reward those who don't). And then maybe some kind of penalty on people who have dumb kids. Or, likewise, a reward for those who have smart kids.

We simply must get control of the situation. It's getting out of hand!

You’re right everyone gets welfare in one form or another. We pay people to have kids and reward those that grow old with tax exemptions. We give rewards for living and rewards for dying. The government will help you stay healthy and help you when you get sick. They will give free coloring books to the kiddies and free admission to national parks to seniors. They give tax breaks to investors that make money and tax breaks to investors who lose money. They will even file your taxes for you for free.

Well that isn't exactly welfare. People are still paying taxes not being paid.

 

[Spoonman]

How did people survive before governmental welfare programs?

They did this thing called working for a living.

A novel idea!

But it flies in the face of the ACLU

 

[Uncensored2008]

Heavens to betsy..what are you a communist or something?

Corporations are sacrosanct like the baby jeebus because they are working overtime to..um..produce..um..stuff.

Yeah. Producers.

That must be why your Messiah® handed Chase, Goldman Sachs, AIG, GM and others a cool $9 trillion.....

When it comes to Corporate Welfare, Obama and the fascist democrats are kings at handing it out!

 

[Contumacious]

Should welfare recipients be allowed to breed?

Wrong question.

You should have asked "Does the welfare/warfare state have the authority to re-institute slavery?

Was The Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution abolished?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

.

But that never said anything about supporting them.

Slavery

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.

 

[Spoonman]

Wrong question.

You should have asked "Does the welfare/warfare state have the authority to re-institute slavery?

Was The Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution abolished?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

.

But that never said anything about supporting them.

Slavery

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.

yes, but abolishing slavery never stated a welfare system had to be set up to provide for them

 

[Contumacious]

But that never said anything about supporting them.

Slavery

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.

yes, but abolishing slavery never stated a welfare system had to be set up to provide for them

HUH?

So are taxpayers happy to be supporting the parasites?

So what's all the fuzz about them?

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They did this thing called working for a living.

I guess you've never studied the history of the poor, nor read a Charles Dickens novel.

I guess you never learned about the potato famine in Ireland, and the Irish who fled to the USA, only to be denied the right to work by most employers.

I guess you never hear about "poor farms".

Ah life was so much simpler and more perfect back then! We got rid of poor and sick people by letting them die of starvation, illness, be fatally assaulted by thugs.

In case you really have any curiosity about the history of poor people, I suggest you read a book, rather than claim to have all the answers without doing so.

Here's a hint: why do you think average life-expectancy has increased so much in the 20'th century?

No, poor people did NOT have jobs more then than now, they simply most often got sick died.

No offense, but you are a simple minded, poorly educated, buffoon.

 

[Spoonman]

Slavery

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.

yes, but abolishing slavery never stated a welfare system had to be set up to provide for them

HUH?

So are taxpayers happy to be supporting the parasites?

So what's all the fuzz about them?

.

i sure hope they aren't

 

[Spoonman]

They did this thing called working for a living.

I guess you've never studied the history of the poor, nor read a Charles Dickens novel.

I guess you never learned about the potato famine in Ireland, and the Irish who fled to the USA, only to be denied the right to work by most employers.

I guess you never hear about "poor farms".

Ah life was so much simpler and more perfect back then! We got rid of poor and sick people by letting them die of starvation, illness, be fatally assaulted by thugs.

In case you really have any curiosity about the history of poor people, I suggest you read a book, rather than claim to have all the answers without doing so.

Here's a hint: why do you think average life-expectancy has increased so much in the 20'th century?

No, poor people did NOT have jobs more then than now, they simply most often got sick died.

Medical advances and modern technology.

 

[Spoonman]

HUH?

So are taxpayers happy to be supporting the parasites?

So what's all the fuzz about them?

.

Good idea! Let's just bring back slavery and indentured servitude! That will get rid of welfare for poor people really fast! Round them all up and put them to work as slaves.

uhm, isn't that what roosevelt did?

 

[Spoonman]

Here's a hint: why do you think average life-expectancy has increased so much in the 20'th century?

No, poor people did NOT have jobs more then than now, they simply most often got sick died.

Medical advances and modern technology.

Another person who swallows what they has been told without investigating for themself.

Roughly 30% of advances in the AVERAGE life span is due to medical advances. The OTHER 70% of the advance is because many many many more people back then simply died off earlier, usually in extreme poverty and without access to food, shelter, or medical intervention. Now read that CAREFULLY, I did NOT say 70% of the people died in poverty, so please don't misquote me. I said many more people died in poverty at earlier ages, out of work, poor, and unable to eat, thus bringing the AVERAGE life span down by dozens of years.

got a link to back that up. you know, so I don't misquote you and all

 

[dblack]

Free weed and titties for everyone.

Socialist.

Hey... if that's socialism. Sign. Me. Up.