By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Should there be a child limit on those that rely on government assistance?

 

Should there be a limit on children for those that can't support their own kids?

Yes 34 61.82%
 
No 14 25.45%
 
See Results 7 12.73%
 
Total:55

Why not just kill all the poor people and be done with your plan in a faster, more efficient way? Fuck it, lets kill the blacks, non-christians, gays, and left voting population too while we're at it.



Around the Network
scottie said:
Why not just kill all the poor people and be done with your plan in a faster, more efficient way? Fuck it, lets kill the blacks, non-christians, gays, and left voting population too while we're at it.

Lol, always people on the left taking everthing to the extreme to try to avoid any real discussion and make the their opposition look crazy, yet in the attempt making themselves look this way.  BTW, what you suggest was already attempted by Planned Parenthood under its founder Margaret Sanger.  Well, minus the non-Chritians, as she disliked Christians, and left leaning voters.



oldschoolfool said:
thranx said:
oldschoolfool said:
i'd say no. who is the govment to tell people,how many kids to have?


well in that case. why is the government going to take care of kids that people have that they cant care of? People seem to want it both ways i am free to decide how many kids i have, but i expect the government (my nieghbors) to pick up my slack. The ones really hurt are the kids who are brought up by parents that are unable to do so, either financially, mentally, or dont have the time to do so.


well,america is'nt china. I mean,what's next is america going to ban sugar,fatty foods,soda,guns,and anything that's a burden on the health system and goverment. I mean,I don't have the answer's,but I just don't think the govment telling people how to live there lives is the answer. 

I agree completely. I was just looking at it in a different way. I am all for more freedoms and less government running our lives. That would include cutting back on social programs as well. If people are always relying on the government they will not learn to rely on them selves.



Yes, I am sick and tired of supporting leetches.



thismeintiel said:
scottie said:
Why not just kill all the poor people and be done with your plan in a faster, more efficient way? Fuck it, lets kill the blacks, non-christians, gays, and left voting population too while we're at it.

Lol, always people on the left taking everthing to the extreme to try to avoid any real discussion and make the their opposition look crazy, yet in the attempt making themselves look this way.  BTW, what you suggest was already attempted by Planned Parenthood under its founder Margaret Sanger.  Well, minus the non-Chritians, as she disliked Christians, and left leaning voters.


Eugenics is eugenics, if you support the elimination of unfavorables through it, you are evil. Simple as that. I didn't say you are crazy so don't put words in my mouth.

 

@ The Margaret Sanger comments - I have made no move to support anything this person has ever said and thus I don't see why you even brought her up. She, she is an atheist who supports eugenics, but she certainly isn't considered left, either by the standards of the time or modern standards.



Around the Network
scottie said:
thismeintiel said:
scottie said:
Why not just kill all the poor people and be done with your plan in a faster, more efficient way? Fuck it, lets kill the blacks, non-christians, gays, and left voting population too while we're at it.

Lol, always people on the left taking everthing to the extreme to try to avoid any real discussion and make the their opposition look crazy, yet in the attempt making themselves look this way.  BTW, what you suggest was already attempted by Planned Parenthood under its founder Margaret Sanger.  Well, minus the non-Chritians, as she disliked Christians, and left leaning voters.


Eugenics is eugenics, if you support the elimination of unfavorables through it, you are evil. Simple as that. I didn't say you are crazy so don't put words in my mouth.

 

@ The Margaret Sanger comments - I have made no move to support anything this person has ever said and thus I don't see why you even brought her up. She, she is an atheist who supports eugenics, but she certainly isn't considered left, either by the standards of the time or modern standards.

Someone simply offered a topic for discussion about limiting the amount of children people who are on welfare can have, which has nothing to do with actually killing anyone, yet you likened it to killing them, saying it would be a more "efficient way."  Then you took it even further, including blacks, people of non-Christian faiths, gays, and those who vote Democrat.  Seems like you were trying to imply his suggestion, one he actually says later is going too far, was just crazy to even think.

I brought up Margaret Sanger because it is someone many on the left admire as a champion of women's rights, regardless of her true intentions.  In my opinion, it's kinda like rewriting histroy, 1984-style.  And wasn't really implying that you supported her personally.  Though, if you are a person who considers themselves left-leaning, then I had a pretty good shot you did.    Glad you see through that BS, though.



scottie said:


Eugenics is eugenics, if you support the elimination of unfavorables through it, you are evil. Simple as that. I didn't say you are crazy so don't put words in my mouth.


I am not supporting elimination of any race.  I am merely stating that tax payers shouldn't be counted on to support someone that keeps having babies that they can't afford.  I went a little too far when I talked about having their tubes tied.   However, I believe the best option would be to just limit the support to 2 children.  There are poor people of every race in USA.   A person of any race that is too poor to support their children shouldn't be rewarded with tax payer money to keep having even more kids.   This isn't a racial issue it is an economical issue.  Most families don't go on a 100k spending spree when their budget is stretched to the limit.  Should be the same ideology when thinking about a kid considering raising a child cost a lot more than 100k. 



MrBubbles actually struck closer to the truth here. You cannot "limit" this sort of thing because you really can't stop them unless we go into forced abortion territory, and any attempt to penalize this sort of thing, either by removing their support or taking the child away, will either end up hurting the child or just imposing a further burden on the state

My belief is that welfare should be limited to Medicaid, Food Stamps that are only valid for healthy food (that is to say everything outside the top of the pyramid) and necessities like toilet paper or toothpaste, and housing, with perhaps a system of incentives to get welfare people more if they at least honestly try to better themselves (like we'll give you a stipend if you attend job training and apply for so many jobs a month after you're adequately trained)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sethnintendo said:
scottie said:


Eugenics is eugenics, if you support the elimination of unfavorables through it, you are evil. Simple as that. I didn't say you are crazy so don't put words in my mouth.


I am not supporting elimination of any race.  I am merely stating that tax payers shouldn't be counted on to support someone that keeps having babies that they can't afford.  I went a little too far when I talked about having their tubes tied.   However, I believe the best option would be to just limit the support to 2 children.  There are poor people of every race in USA.   A person of any race that is too poor to support their children shouldn't be rewarded with tax payer money to keep having even more kids.   This isn't a racial issue it is an economical issue.  Most families don't go on a 100k spending spree when their budget is stretched to the limit.  Should be the same ideology when thinking about a kid considering raising a child cost a lot more than 100k. 


Eugenics doesn't have to be a racial thing by the way, if one were to prevent short/tall, dumb/smart people from breeding, that would be eugenics.

 

Responding to the 'simply cut off benefits for more than 2 children, think about it in these terms.

 

If a person is poor, and uneducated, and for some reason does not want to use contraception/abortion. They currently have kids and get government support. Think what will happen if you stop that government support after they have 2 kids? Will they stop having sex? Obviously not. Will they miraculously overcome their aversion to contraception and abortion? Again, no. What they will do, is have just as many children, and then end up with a lot less money. This will make it impossible for these families to get their kids the education they need, and will thus worsen the poverty of the children in the future, meaning that they are a bigger drain on finances in the long run.

 

Disregarding practical arguments for a second, and focusing on a moral one. The benefits that a family gets for having a child, the money does (should) not get spent on the parents, it is spent on the child. Why does a child deserve to suffer simply because his parents made poor choices and he happens to have 2 older siblings?



I think the reason people are on this assistance is because theyhave so many kids! So who could stop it, without knowing it is going to happen. Besides Welfare keeps doctors offices, hospitals, food suppliers , etc in business. Food stamp add up to a lot!!! Think of all the products that are being bought up. Tax money, jobs, etc. I would say no.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter