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.
If you want to go there with smoking......then they should also lose their benefits if they have money to pay for satellite or cable TV.
I don't disagree. Cable and Satellite, are not basic needs, and there are working people who cannot afford cable or satellite, why should people on welfare, who's living is subsidized by those very same working people have it?
LOL I just hope all the right wing crazies on this board are reincarnated.
In Belgium or Norway.
Who are the "right wing crazies" ... the ones who believe you should be financially secure and not depend on the gov't if you decide to procreate? What is so right wing or crazy about that?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsilver
Wait you kidding right? I am curious to see what everyone else posted. But this is the stupidest comment I have read today. Basically, by your logic, if this was followed to a tee, then this country would die off in a generation.
I agree that his financial calculations for child rearing might be a little exaggerated ... but in reality, it is very expensive to raise children. I fail to see why taxpayers should be forced to flip the bill for every child's education, health care, daycare, as well as all other social programs & tax breaks/credits. Having kids is a choice the same as having a big screen TV is a choice ... it's a privilege (not a right), and should not be funded via government money.
I agree that his financial calculations for child rearing might be a little exaggerated ... but in reality, it is very expensive to raise children. I fail to see why taxpayers should be forced to flip the bill for every child's education, health care, daycare, as well as all other social programs & tax breaks/credits. Having kids is a choice the same as having a big screen TV is a choice ... it's a privilege (not a right), and should not be funded via government money.
That's right, parents generally leech off responsible taxpayers who don't have kids. It's as wrong as if I demanded my car insurance be subsidized by the government because having a car is my "right". Hiking taxes on parents and cutting it for people would be the just thing to do but you won't see it in a million years with our pandering politicians who are often also parents.
Who do you suppose is going to take care of these childless taxpayers in assisted living and nursing homes when they're old? I'll tell you: the "subsidized" children of the "breeding" population. Except for the fact that there won't be enough of them.
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
You don't need all these restrictons. Simply end welfare as we know it and poor women will have less children and/or start having children with quality men instead of the bad boy thugs they are attracted to
mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old
I won't respond to the rest of your illogical ideas, since the others have already covered that... but why are you only proposing the women stay home? After her initial maternity leave, why can't the father stay home instead - especially if she's making more money? My sister earns nearly double her husband's salary (both do quite well), and they decided HE would be a SAHP if anyone would. Neither ended up leaving their jobs after the kids were born, but he was the clear choice both financially and emotionally. She's so type-A, I think she'd go insane if she stopped working for 9 years.
Who do you suppose is going to take care of these childless taxpayers in assisted living and nursing homes when they're old? I'll tell you: the "subsidized" children of the "breeding" population. Except for the fact that there won't be enough of them.
And the childless taxpayers in assisted living and nursing homes will PAY for their services. They will pay with every penny they have saved for their retirement and in many cases their very homes.
Those "kids" won't be stopping by to help childless seniors out of the kindness of their hearts.....they will be doing it for a paycheck.
Your children will take you to the doctor, the store and help you care for your homes for FREE.....if the childless neighbor who subsidised their upbringing needs help.....they better have the money to PAY them......again.
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
Thank you for illustrating how absurd this brand of price of everything value of nothing civilization has become. When you live in a system contrary to life, hostile/ unjust to the majority, that system is doomed for failure.
Yep, tell the awful poor to stop breeding and deal with an aging population with not enough people of working age to take care of them and no one to work in more menial jobs that most of you turn your noses up at.
Most people who actualy work for a living and earn their money have to submit to drug testing.....why shouldn't welfare recipients be required to do the same?
When Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed the law requiring welfare recipients to pass annual drug tests to collect benefits, he justified the likely unconstitutional law by saying it would save the state money by keeping drug users from using public money to subsidize their drug habits. Drug use, Scott claimed, was higher among welfare recipients than among the rest of the population.
I suspect the results in Florida would be typical for other states considering drug testing its poorest citizens.
Perhaps we should consider mandatory birth control for welfare recipients instead??
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.
