Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all conservatives are crazy trumpies just like not all liberals are simplistic thinkers. We have been throwing money at the problem of poverty for over 50 years with little results. Generational poverty ensures that no matter how much money we throw at the problem the psychology of poverty will always gets passed from generation to generation.
You haven't answered the main question in this thread. What's wrong with offering a basic income to someone who voluntarily agree to never reproduce? Instead of paying impoverished women to have multiple children out of wedlock, why not pay them to not have any?
The current system clearly doesn't work. Conservatives want to shut down all welfare programs to turn this country into something like Somalia and Haiti. Liberals want to keep throwing money at the problem. Both sides are too busy forwarding their ideologies that no real solution is ever considered.
Apart from the moral issues involved, it would be too arbitrary and most likely focus on minorities. It would not be easy to decide on definite criteria. Are we talking, say, third-generation Welfare recipients? Those with larger/smaller families? Also, what about age limit? If a 50 year old female says she'll take the deal, well, that's not really worth it, is it? She can't have anymore kids anyway. If a healthy, sexually active 25 year old male takes the deal that's one thing. But how do we deny it to a man in his 70s, if he decides he wants 'in'?
I love how right wingers talk about the 'sanctity of life' while at the same time considering something like sterilization for poor people to save taxpayer money.
We're doomed.
What moral issues? Did you conveniently leave out the part that it's all voluntary?
Regarding age limits and such, I have already clearly stated that I don't have all the answers. Like all new ideas, the details can be added in or subtracted. No program is ever perfect. What matters is how we proceed to improve it.
The first windows OS was a mess. Computers were plagued with blue screen of death. The current version of windows 10 is pretty darn good. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. Imagine if MS has given up on windows after the first version failed.
No idea is perfect at its inception. That's why every idea needs improvements.
And no, I'm not a right winger. This isn't even my idea. I got it from someone else on this forum. I have not been able to find anything logical wrong with the idea.
Not all conservatives are crazy trumpies just like not all liberals are simplistic thinkers. We have been throwing money at the problem of poverty for over 50 years with little results. Generational poverty ensures that no matter how much money we throw at the problem the psychology of poverty will always gets passed from generation to generation.
You haven't answered the main question in this thread. What's wrong with offering a basic income to someone who voluntarily agree to never reproduce? Instead of paying impoverished women to have multiple children out of wedlock, why not pay them to not have any?
The current system clearly doesn't work. Conservatives want to shut down all welfare programs to turn this country into something like Somalia and Haiti. Liberals want to keep throwing money at the problem. Both sides are too busy forwarding their ideologies that no real solution is ever considered.
Actually, I offered some thoughts as to why I don't believe this program would work.
I'm not going to get into the moral and philosophical implications of the voluntary sterilization in return for lifelong income debate, as I'm pretty sure you are aware of all of them.
I will, however, point out that this post, if taken as a general truth about poor people and how they think, is a very effective argument against it, as are some of the other comments you have made about the culture of poverty and the role of fertility/reproduction therein.
You have mentioned young men who impregnate many girls, and girls who have lots of children at a young age to collect welfare. The latter may, in some cases, be true, but what about the young men? They gain nothing, financially, from fathering (in the simplest biological sense) all of these children, yet they do it. Some are proud of it, viewing it as a sign of manhood. The same for the girls. If a girl grows up in an environment that is, for all practical purposes, a matriarchy, she is going to look at having a child as a rite of passage, an essential part of what it means to be a woman. BTW, I hope anyone reading this will forgive my generalizations about the habits of the poor. They are not necessarily representative of what I believe, but, confronted with generalizations about what "they" do and what "they" are capable of, I can only address the question by sinking to its level.
Back to the question. If, as you say, poor people make counter-intuitive decisions, what makes you think a kid who won't use a condom because it's not manly is going to submit to a vasectomy, at any price? Why would a girl whose only role models are mothers and aunts sacrifice what may appear to be her sole opportunity to "be someone?" If your assumptions about the poor and what they will and will not do to improve their lives are correct, do you really believe this plan would be a success? The whole fertility thing, while certainly not universal among the poor, is certainly "a thing" in certain communities, as are objections to sterilization on religious grounds (and not just among poor people, either.)
I suspect that this proposal would be widely rejected, unless some of these attitudes change, and interestingly, once they change, the plan would no longer be necessary.
Now, on to those who might actually accept this interesting offer: career-oriented, childless-by-choice young professionals, some of whom might love to have surgery and a tidy monthly allowance for life, on the taxpayer's dime. I have no problem with people who are childless by choice: I am one myself. But I'm not terribly interested in helping to foot the bill for a program that could very well benefit the people who need it least.
I really do believe this plan will work. I don't expect 100% of the poor to flock to the program all at once. But if we can get a certain percentage of them to agree to not pass their impoverished attitude to the next generation, we will have significantly reduce poverty by quite a bit.
It's an idea that is quite drastic. I admit that. Try to look at it this way. Right now, single women who don't know any better are rewarded by having children out of wedlock. I know that to the rest of us, it's not nearly enough money to have a comfortable life. But to them, barely getting by is good enough. Their children grow up and observe this lifestyle believing that it's the only way they can live their lives.
I have posted many links in this thread pointing to studies that show 70% of children who are born poor remain poor all their lives. It is not a coincidence. Generational poverty is very real. For 50 years, we have tried to educate them, help them financially, push forward programs for job training, etc. Nothing has worked. We still have more generational poverty than ever before.
I'm an engineer. In engineering, we actually have a word to describe doing something the same way many times expecting a different result next time. We call it "stupid".
Shall we continue to try the same damn thing we've been doing for 50 years or can we please try something new?
I really do believe this plan will work. I don't expect 100% of the poor to flock to the program all at once. But if we can get a certain percentage of them to agree to not pass their impoverished attitude to the next generation, we will have significantly reduce poverty by quite a bit.
It's an idea that is quite drastic. I admit that. Try to look at it this way. Right now, single women who don't know any better are rewarded by having children out of wedlock. I know that to the rest of us, it's not nearly enough money to have a comfortable life. But to them, barely getting by is good enough. Their children grow up and observe this lifestyle believing that it's the only way they can live their lives.
I have posted many links in this thread pointing to studies that show 70% of children who are born poor remain poor all their lives. It is not a coincidence. Generational poverty is very real. For 50 years, we have tried to educate them, help them financially, push forward programs for job training, etc. Nothing has worked. We still have more generational poverty than ever before.
I'm an engineer. In engineering, we actually have a word to describe doing something the same way many times expecting a different result next time. We call it "stupid".
Shall we continue to try the same damn thing we've been doing for 50 years or can we please try something new?
I don't see a problem with it since it's voluntary but I am skeptical of the results. I'm just not sure how many women would permanently dismember themselves for a basic income. Personally I wouldn't even do it if I never wanted children because it seems unnatural. But maybe that's just me I also don't believe in taking conventional medication unless I really have to or adding hormones to my body (sans me getting the copper coil). Also from what I've read masectomies can have side effects of their own. Of course pregnancy has side effects too and ends up with something you can't take back as well.
Idk being a woman sucks no matter how you look at it. Maybe you could add an IUD to sweeten the deal. They are just as statistically effective as tying your tubes if not a tad more and then if they ever are ready for a child down the road they can still have one.
Intrauterine device. It's a coil device that nests in your uterus and the strings hang out the cervix. The only real drawback is STDs are more dangerous with it but that's what condoms are for if you don't trust your partner.
What moral issues? Did you conveniently leave out the part that it's all voluntary?
Regarding age limits and such, I have already clearly stated that I don't have all the answers. Like all new ideas, the details can be added in or subtracted. No program is ever perfect. What matters is how we proceed to improve it.
The first windows OS was a mess. Computers were plagued with blue screen of death. The current version of windows 10 is pretty darn good. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. Imagine if MS has given up on windows after the first version failed.
No idea is perfect at its inception. That's why every idea needs improvements.
And no, I'm not a right winger. This isn't even my idea. I got it from someone else on this forum. I have not been able to find anything logical wrong with the idea.
It's not all voluntary. The money used to pay someone else's basic income is robbed from a tax victim who has no say in the matter.
It's not all voluntary. The money used to pay someone else's basic income is robbed from a tax victim who has no say in the matter.
Welfare never is voluntary in that sense so what's your point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apart from the moral issues involved, it would be too arbitrary and most likely focus on minorities. It would not be easy to decide on definite criteria. Are we talking, say, third-generation Welfare recipients? Those with larger/smaller families? Also, what about age limit? If a 50 year old female says she'll take the deal, well, that's not really worth it, is it? She can't have anymore kids anyway. If a healthy, sexually active 25 year old male takes the deal that's one thing. But how do we deny it to a man in his 70s, if he decides he wants 'in'? 
