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 can guarantee I will spend less per kid on orphanages than the current welfare system does.
then you'll have kids that grow up with emotional problems from being raised in orphanages. They'll grow up to be criminals, or unproductive citizens, and you'll complain about that, too. I think the best thing to do with AFDC, or whatever it is now, is make it temporary and include job training.
then you'll have kids that grow up with emotional problems from being raised in orphanages. They'll grow up to be criminals, or unproductive citizens, and you'll complain about that, too. I think the best thing to do with AFDC, or whatever it is now, is make it temporary and include job training.
I can always build more prisons; its a real growth industry with a nice rate-of-return.
You have to terminate parential rights early on so the newborn has a chance to be adopted. It's really the only way. People will either go out of their way to NOT get pregnant, NOT STAY pregnant, or GET OFF the public dole. After, say, the second child or so.
Whle I like the idea of limiting and cutting off benifits we WILL end up with alot more poor, uneducated, unemployable, illiterate and possibly criminal people due to the fact that some folks won't stop having kids under any circumstances because they are not that intelligent. We can't force smarts onto people. THAT is the trouble aspect of all this. What to do with the fallout.
You have hit the nail squarely on its head. Intelligent people only have the children that they can afford. Also, intelligent people are likely to be higher up on the economic scale. Unintelligent people are more likely to be poor and more likely to be on some sort of public assistance. Add to this the fact that unintelligent people are likely to have more children and likely to have most of them out of wedlock. Its a real problem. Eugenics would seem to be an attractive solution if it were not such a slippery slope.
I once saw what was supposed to be a 'feel good' piece on CNN about Doctors without Borders in Haiti. Haiti is the poorist nation in the Western Hemisphere and is grossly overpopulated. One segment in this piece focused on a woman who almost died in child birth. She was 40 years old and it was her 13th child! What the hey! What's wrong with this picture? Theroretically this woman can now have more children and her new born daughter will undoubtedly have several.
The same thing is happening in the poorer neighborhoods in this country. This is insanity! Perhaps more education and incentives would work. We'll carry you but you are off of public assistance after you have your first child. If you think you can afford a child then have at it but I don't want to pay for it.
You have hit the nail squarely on its head. Intelligent people only have the children that they can afford. Also, intelligent people are likely to be higher up on the economic scale. Unintelligent people are more likely to be poor and more likely to be on some sort of public assistance. Add to this the fact that unintelligent people are likely to have more children and likely to have most of them out of wedlock. Its a real problem. Eugenics would seem to be an attractive solution if it were not such a slippery slope.
I once saw what was supposed to be a 'feel good' piece on CNN about Doctors without Borders in Haiti. Haiti is the poorist nation in the Western Hemisphere and is grossly overpopulated. One segment in this piece focused on a woman who almost died in child birth. She was 40 years old and it was her 13th child! What the hey! What's wrong with this picture? Theroretically this woman can now have more children and her new born daughter will undoubtedly have several.
The same thing is happening in the poorer neighborhoods in this country. This is insanity! Perhaps more education and incentives would work. We'll carry you but you are off of public assistance after you have your first child. If you think you can afford a child then have at it but I don't want to pay for it.
- Reel
This is a chilling post.
You're recommending genocide to protect your tax dollar.
(at least, I guess that's why.)
Is it cruel to tell you this?:
Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients
Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget
Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. [1990s stats] Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).
According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and [i]ncludes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions.
(from Table 8.1, page 133)
***
So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs.
So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs.
In 2007, between my personal and corporation federal taxes, I coughed up ~ $300K in federal income taxes. If these programs are so small, nobody should miss them. Cut them and give me my back my $22.5K.
I filed an extension for 2008, but can bet when the tax guys get all done it will be about the same. In the last two years, this insignificant little program cost me almost $50K. What is small to you may not be to the guy that is paying the bill.
ps, don't even get me started on the State of CA and their bloodsucking tax structure.
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.
no, I mean a depo shot or pills, if they want them. Or an IUD, or mirena.
