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.
I totally agree with this and have a very radical, unpolitically correct view on women who repeatedly and irresponsibly produce children from usually multiple partners and rely on the system for food, health care, housing.
So, what would you suggest we do about that? Government-mandated sterilization unless they meet your standards of behavior? How would like MY standards applied against YOUR life?
So, what would you suggest we do about that? Government-mandated sterilization unless they meet your standards of behavior? How would like MY standards applied against YOUR life?
Within the context of this discussion their having children isn't the issue the issue is other peoples wealth being transferred to support their children. There are some governors with ideas on how to reform assistance to do that. One thought revolves around limiting the number of years assistance is provided and or the number of children covered. That might the thinking goes provide motivation for change initiated by the individual. That would enable tax payers to keep more of their wealth to help secure their OWN secure retirement. This of course is a topic that will possibly be debated in some states and perhaps influence 2012 election results.
DETROIT, July 14 (UPI) -- Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to sign a bill that would put a lifetime cap on the length of time state recipients can collect welfare, officials said.
The Michigan Senate Wednesday approved a measure to cap the maximum time a person can collect welfare at 48 months, The Detroit News reported Thursday.
Snyder was expected to sign the legislation into law as soon as the bill hits his desk. It would immediately affect about 13,000 families statewide.
The cap would be retroactive and cumulative, so families would lose payments averaging $515 monthly, starting Oct. 1.
Quote:
"This bill is draconian, damnable and unconscionable," said Sen. Coleman Young II, a Detroit Democrat. "The fact that we are destroying a social safety net shows we have lost sight of the fundamental purpose of being elected, which is to protect the general welfare.
Interesting how he defines the purpose of being elected. Is that in keeping with the OP?
Tuborg, for me it isn't about wealth transfer as much as it is about the societal problems that result - illiteracy, crime, multi-generational poverty increasing exponentially. With every right/privilege there is an accompanying responsibility. If you want the right to have children, be prepared to support them emotionally, financially and intellectually.
My husband and I had one child because we knew we could not properly support more in all the ways mentioned above. It is called discipline.
Tuborg, for me it isn't about wealth transfer as much as it is about the societal problems that result - illiteracy, crime, multi-generational poverty increasing exponentially. With every right/privilege there is an accompanying responsibility. If you want the right to have children, be prepared to support them emotionally, financially and intellectually.
My husband and I had one child because we knew we could not properly support more in all the ways mentioned above. It is called discipline.
On this we are 100% in agreement. Both of our sons were planned with our finances in mind. They were born within a couple of months of our target date. We waited to have kids until we had purchased our first house etc etc etc. Because of the thread I have been presenting the issue as one of wealth transfer and the resulting restriction on others to use their money to secure their retirement. What you speak of is the other side of the coin and that is the moral hazard created by some programs. That is another thread and probably another forum.
Within the context of this discussion their having children isn't the issue the issue is other peoples wealth being transferred to support their children. There are some governors with ideas on how to reform assistance to do that. One thought revolves around limiting the number of years assistance is provided and or the number of children covered. That might the thinking goes provide motivation for change initiated by the individual. That would enable tax payers to keep more of their wealth to help secure their OWN secure retirement. This of course is a topic that will possibly be debated in some states and perhaps influence 2012 election results.
The report, coming out before the Nov. 23 deadline for a special congressional committee to propose $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years, casts a spotlight on a government safety net that has buoyed older Americans on Social Security and Medicare amid wider cuts to education and other programs, including cash assistance for poor families.
"It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them," said Harry Holzer, a labor economist and public policy professor at Georgetown University who called the magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Hmmm young vs old, hmmmmm which party is more popular with which age group? Hmmm which age group is in debt for college loans for majors they never had a chance go get a job in? Hmmm which age group is more likely to have purchased a house the couldn't afford? Hmmm now who is the president wanting to fix each problem with someone else's efforts( you did contribute to SS and Medicare) was this your intent when you did? You did pay into Medicare and SS to help someone in debt didn't you? After all once you give it to government it is no longer yours and can be used for what they value. Now is that a case where value=votes? However as some have said it is for the good of others. What about YOUR retirement regardless of age.
More from the link:
Quote:
Robert Moffitt, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University and co-author the paper, cited a series of cuts in government programs since 1984 for the neediest, including welfare payments to single parents and the unemployed under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, while Social Security and Medicare have either been expanded or remained constant.
"Over time, even under a revised poverty measure, the elderly have done better," he said.
Now some might argue that participation in SS and Medicare often required SOME production from the individual to the program and to overall production of GDP. But poverty being equated with them in the same category? So is this now on the agenda a possible plan to change Medicare and SS not to make them sustainable but for wealth transfer purposes? Read the article it talks about student loan debt and housing debt along with poverty. Remember the threads by folks expressing concern about the word entitlement being used for both welfare and SS etc? Perhaps those concerns were justified.
Government can enforce morality, but it cannot make people moral.
Therein lies your problem.
This is not an issue of morality in the strict sense of birth out of wedlock or premarital sex, etc. It is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't care who sleeps with whom or how many - as long as their actions do not impact my life - i.e., contagious disease for which the government has to fund cleanup, children who can't be fed, are left unsupervised, are only semi-literate, end up being disadvantaged and impoverished their entire lives because their parents never gave a thought to anything - in other words, they were not fit to be parents. It is selfish to indiscriminately reproduce and expect society to bear the consequences.
To the degree being selfish/thoughtless/irresponsible is immoral and that immorality negatively impacts an entire society and culture, then, yes, morality is also an issue here.
This is not an issue of morality in the strict sense of birth out of wedlock or premarital sex, etc. It is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't care who sleeps with whom or how many - as long as their actions do not impact my life - i.e., contagious disease for which the government has to fund cleanup, children who can't be fed, are left unsupervised, are only semi-literate, end up being disadvantaged and impoverished their entire lives because their parents never gave a thought to anything - in other words, they were not fit to be parents. It is selfish to indiscriminately reproduce and expect society to bear the consequences.
To the degree being selfish/thoughtless/irresponsible is immoral and that immorality negatively impacts an entire society and culture, then, yes, morality is also an issue here.
So, because the parents are irresponsible, you'd punish the kids?
So, because the parents are irresponsible, you'd punish the kids?
I agree with Ariadne. I'm sure you will think this sounds cold, and I'm fine with that: I am not responsible for taking care of all the children of irresponsible parents. I am responsible for my own children. Perhaps it sounds harsh, but there are a lot of sad situations out there; you can't possibly use taxes to make right every single one of them. If you feel very strongly for these people, there is always donation and volunteerism.
Personally, we do teach our children to give to charity, volunteer their time and to have compassion. But we also teach them to be responsible, that there are consequences to every action, and if they do something they must be ready to face the consequences. Too many people in this country face very few consequences for their actions, meaning they never learn important lessons.
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.
