In before gronke calls you all racist. lol


But I do agree with what you guys have said.

1/26/2010 12:39:25 PM

Quote :

"yous best not be tukin my babies. i be workin hard since 15 to make my foo babies by time ize 22"

Seriously get out you racist fuck

This place has become an echo chamber for conservative circle-jerking. I'm out.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 12:46:55 PM

http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/view

1/26/2010 12:48:21 PM

I fully support providing free lunch for kids who need it.

I also fully support exercising certain controls over adults who receive public funds. This includes drug testing. I can't really say I have a stance on forcing them to attend PTA meetings, but if it can be proven to be beneficial then I would be all for it.

I think the families where parents don't have time to be involved with their kids' studies because they are working two jobs are few and far between. I'm sure you can find some examples if you search, but a few examples does not mean it is the norm. If you're receiving public subsidies for your housing, food, and energy usage I don't think it is too much to ask that you make responsible choices while receiving the funds. Once you get off welfare you can do what you want with your life. The goal of our welfare system should be to elevate people so that they do not need welfare.

1/26/2010 12:52:18 PM

for page 2:
The best way to handle overpopulation is through individual responsible decision-making about procreation. If someone is incapable of this, and they pop out more babies than they can afford, the state should and does take the children.

However...

Right now, if they pop out more babies than they can afford, they get welfare money -- or additional welfare money if they already received it. This. This is total bullshit. If your irresponsible ass has kids when you shouldn't -- you should lose the kids at the first sign of trouble. You should NOT be "rewarded" with more "free money". Period.

1/26/2010 12:55:25 PM

Quote :

"you should lose the kids at the first sign of trouble."

I was late with my power bill this month. Are you going to rip my kids from me?

1/26/2010 1:06:16 PM

^ Did you just forget or were you having trouble paying it? Serious question--I promise I won't hate one way or the other.

1/26/2010 1:08:38 PM

Pretend I had trouble paying it. I just want to see where everyone's line is.

1/26/2010 1:10:16 PM

Quote :

"This place has become an echo chamber for conservative circle-jerking common sense and people who don't feel like they're entitled to everything. I'm out."

fixed that for you.

1/26/2010 1:10:51 PM

^^ Well, I was just going to post that if you had trouble paying it, I hope things get better for you. Truly I do.

1/26/2010 1:13:30 PM

OK, I'm not going to read all the debate about how we should deal with poor people.

But we need to keep some perspective here.

It's South Carolina. Taken with Alabama and Mississippi, it represents the southern states that remain staunchly committed to the "old south"

1/26/2010 1:18:54 PM

That was actually just a hypothetical. I don't really have kids. (Although I was late with the power bill b/c I forget sometimes. Whoops.)

Really I just wanted to spark some discussion. I'm curious to know when people believe that the state has to right to start taking kids away. How many is too many? What constitutes trouble? These are all things that really need to be considered before such a big decision is made. It's not as simple as some people believe.

1/26/2010 1:20:33 PM

^^ How are L.A., Chicago, and so on doing on the race relations front, Grump?

1/26/2010 1:25:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Until we come up with matter replicators, we will always be subject to "not enough stuff". The more people we have the more people we have creating the world's problems, the more despots, the more criminals, the more mouths to feed. It goes both ways."

But where does stuff come from? Why, people make stuff. The more people we have, the more stuff we can make. And if the only way for people to get more stuff is by making stuff, namely operating within a system of liberty, then it is demonstrably true that for every extra person using stuff they produced at least that much stuff before they could have it (unless they stole it or the government took it for them).

Quote :

"It is obvious that there is a finite amount of resources at a given time on this rock. It follows then that it can only support a finite amount of people to consume those resources. Whether we are currently at this limit is a matter of opinion. But if people keep creating more people willy nilly then the likelihood that we'll reach this limit is 1. Unless the matter replicators happen before that point."

The entire world population arranged into suburban single family homes on 1/4 acre plots with room for roads and highways would fit in Texas with room to spare. While it may be true that there is an absolute maximum population the planet can support with a given level of technology, we are not anywhere near that point. The only study I read that honestly tried to calculate a number was based upon 1990 technology and using Japan as the target standard of living for the entire planet and came up with a maximum of 20 billion people (the planet ran out of arable land). It has been 20 years since then, and genetic engineering should have dramatically increased this number since then. And it just so happens that the closer we are to that point, IE the more people alive, the faster technological advancement is pushing up the ceiling. We don't see it, because most of the Earth's population has chosen not to live in a state of liberty (third world) and therefore does not produce distributable technology. Thankfully, China is fixing much of the problem, so in the coming decades we should expect to see lots of advances coming out of china in the fields of agriculture, construction, and transportation, advances we in the west do not invest in because we simply do not face any shortages related to population limits (what we Americans consider marginal land and not worth cultivating, Chinese farmers would love to have access to).

1/26/2010 1:33:50 PM

Well, the demand for children (through adoption) far exceeds the supply. This is a predictable result of the government establishing a maximum price of zero for transfer of guardianship, and making it so you can only put a kid up for adoption through a state-sanctioned adoption agency, which has various fees which effectively discourages adoption. If you were allowed to sell the trustee guardianship of a child, or if a child were legally allowed to leave the family on their own accord, I think we'd be better off.

In the current system, parents are considered to have complete ownership over their children. Instead, a child should be seen as their own individual that is not yet capable of caring for themselves, requiring a guardian. However, this guardian-child relationship must be completely voluntary, both on the part of the guardian and the child.

Another issue is that it's illegal for a child to not attend school or to work. I can understand that it would be wrong to force a child to work, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to work if they make that decision.

1/26/2010 1:37:06 PM

Quote :

"I was late with my power bill this month. Are you going to rip my kids from me?"

Yes! Absolutely!
...even if you get pulled over for speeding!...or if you cuss in front of them!....the smallest little thing!

(While you're making the valid point of "where do you draw the line?", it seems that you're also suggesting that others have already drawn it too close.)

Quote :

"Really I just wanted to spark some discussion. I'm curious to know when people believe that the state has to right to start taking kids away. How many is too many? What constitutes trouble? These are all things that really need to be considered before such a big decision is made. It's not as simple as some people believe."

Well yeah, it's not simple, but so what? We put a fucking man on the moon -- we should clearly be able to agree when it's reasonable to take away someone's kids.... (Again, to simply make the point that the state can or should take away kids, you don't have to have all those answers... you simply need to know that they do or can exist. Are you saying they don't or can't exist?)

1/26/2010 2:09:28 PM

Quote :

" Seriously get out you racist fuck "

whose racist??

I was picturing some blonde trailer trash looking bimbo names Betty Sue standing at the door of her trailer park home with her
baby drinking from her bosom as her three older rats run around out of control.

what were you automatically assuming...???

1/26/2010 2:09:51 PM

^
It seems that he was assuming that this statement: "yous best not be tukin my babies. i be workin hard since 15 to make my foo babies by time ize 22" is racist, when in fact, there is no mention of race in it. Perhaps he is racist for suggesting that race was in any way involved.... Or perhaps he already thinks you're a racist for some other reason.

1/26/2010 2:16:07 PM

Quote :

"It's so difficult to punish children for their parent's stupid behavior. It wasn't the child's fault that their parents didn't plan ahead, but our system cannot support out of control breeding. You have to stop it before it becomes a problem. Handing out birth control like it's candy is probably the way to go."

So if I stop buying someone's lunch for them, then that is punishment?

Just like there is a difference between a tax break and a subsidy, there is a difference between punishment and stopping the gravy train.

1/26/2010 2:21:32 PM

Probably because HUR writes off-the-cuff, stupid, racist remarks in here all of the time

He glosses them by saying he hates on everybody equally. lol.

1/26/2010 2:23:25 PM

Quote :

"^ It seems that he was assuming that this statement: "yous best not be tukin my babies. i be workin hard since 15 to make my foo babies by time ize 22" is racist, when in fact, there is no mention of race in it. Perhaps he is racist for suggesting that race was in any way involved.... Or perhaps he already thinks you're a racist for some other reason."

I have already pointed this very thing out in another thread. No one mentions race then gronke (god) comes in and starts stereotyping and throwing racism around.

The sad thing is he really is a racist prick IRL. The kid throws around "the N word" like its nobody's business

1/26/2010 2:27:39 PM

^ he does?

wow

1/26/2010 2:47:02 PM

Quote :

"So if I stop buying someone's lunch for them, then that is punishment? Just like there is a difference between a tax break and a subsidy, there is a difference between punishment and stopping the gravy train."

The very immediate impact of taking away the gravy train will be less food in the child's mouth, so yes it is at most an indirect punishment. I don't believe that it's fair to do this to children who had no say in being brought into this world, but life isn't fair and I can understand that this is my opinion.

1/26/2010 2:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying they don't or can't exist?"

The problem with taking kids away is you have to have a place to put them. That place is usually pretty shitty (foster homes), so it's only done in the case of abuse or neglect, which I agree with.

It sounds like you want to take the children of welfare recipients and put them in foster care regardless of evidence of abuse or neglect because welfare costs you money. If that happens, 1) you're still paying for their care, 2) the kids are in a worse situation, and 3) the parents are devastated.

1/26/2010 2:54:30 PM

^
I'm not saying that (Although I could live with #1 and #3.)
I'm saying they shouldn't receive additional welfare after having a kid. Plus, the state should increase vigilance in identifying abuse or neglect in cases where children are born into families that already receive welfare. No child should be hurt -- this is paramount. But we can't just "reward" irresponsibility.

How do you feel about octomom?

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 3:01:56 PM

Quote :

"How do you feel about octomom?"

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 3:09 PM. Reason : /]

1/26/2010 3:09:15 PM

1/26/2010 3:18:12 PM

Quote :

"But we can't just "reward" irresponsibility. "

I don't like it either, but unfortunately that additional kid has a mouth to feed, so that requires extra money to feed it.

And I'm all for beefing up social services so that they can better identify abuse/neglect. Of course, now you're talking about increased government spending, which I thought is what you wanted to curb.

I don't know much about Octomom, but if she's abusing those kids, then they should be taken away. She shouldn't have been assisted in having 8 more kids in addition to her 6 or however many she had. But now that they are here, for better or worse, what do we do with them? I say leave them with the mother who loves them.

1/26/2010 3:32:34 PM

Quote :

"Well, the demand for children (through adoption) far exceeds the supply. This is a predictable result of the government establishing a maximum price of zero for transfer of guardianship, and making it so you can only put a kid up for adoption through a state-sanctioned adoption agency, which has various fees which effectively discourages adoption. If you were allowed to sell the trustee guardianship of a child, or if a child were legally allowed to leave the family on their own accord, I think we'd be better off. Another issue is that it's illegal for a child to not attend school or to work. I can understand that it would be wrong to force a child to work, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to work if they make that decision."

Demand for children far exceeds supply? Since when? I was under the impression most children above toddler-age never get adopted, and any adoption costs the adopting parent(s) thousands of dollars in fees.

And how can you possible say that children can't care for themselves, then say that they're capable of making decisions for themselves. BTW I personally don't think anyone under the age of 16 is capable of making rational long-term decisions.

Quote :

"The entire world population arranged into suburban single family homes on 1/4 acre plots with room for roads and highways would fit in Texas with room to spare. While it may be true that there is an absolute maximum population the planet can support with a given level of technology, we are not anywhere near that point. The only study I read that honestly tried to calculate a number was based upon 1990 technology and using Japan as the target standard of living for the entire planet and came up with a maximum of 20 billion people (the planet ran out of arable land). It has been 20 years since then, and genetic engineering should have dramatically increased this number since then. And it just so happens that the closer we are to that point, IE the more people alive, the faster technological advancement is pushing up the ceiling"

That's only looking at food production and housing, separately (and 1990 Japan would represent a huge reduction in standard of living for most Americans). I saw a similar study from 2002 that looked at combined oil, energy, food and paper usage and found that an American currently has a footprint of 23 acres, while the world can only sustain 4.5 acres max per person. Also, world production already out-paces natural replenishment and the disparity is growing. Reserves are dwindling, not rising.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Reason : fees]

1/26/2010 3:58:45 PM

d357r0y3r, please do not reference me in a thread to which I have not contributed.

It is always obnoxious, but in this instance, it's also lazy and pathetic.

I mean, you just threw my name out, invented a position for me, and weakly responded to that invented position... I know it didn't take a whole lot of time and effort, but considering it's all bullshit, it took too much.

1/26/2010 4:18:03 PM

I liked the idea of making it legal to sell your children. That way, if someone is too poor to feed their children then they can sell them to someone that can afford them. Everyone's problem is solved, as usual, by increasing liberty.

1/26/2010 4:19:15 PM

Except the children, who will grow up to learn that they were sold like cattle.

1/26/2010 4:24:42 PM

Sweet, I'm an affluent sexual deviant, time to go buy a cute little child from some poor folks.

On the other hand, cute little children get born into deviant families all the time, so I guess it wouldn't be that worse. Man this world is fucked up when you think about it.

1/26/2010 4:28:36 PM

People pawn children off for lots of reasons. I just don't like the idea of parents feeling trapped with their children, maybe even resenting them. That has to be worse than finding out your parents loved you enough to make sure you were financially set for life.

Everyone remember the first Freakanomics and how legalizing abortion reduced crime rates? It seemed that unwanted children grew up to be criminals? Well, someone that paid for a child must want them more than the person that sold them.

1/26/2010 4:34:26 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r, please do not reference me in a thread to which I have not contributed. It is always obnoxious, but in this instance, it's also lazy and pathetic. I mean, you just threw my name out, invented a position for me, and weakly responded to that invented position... I know it didn't take a whole lot of time and effort, but considering it's all bullshit, it took too much."

This is taken from the other thread about the child tax credit.

Quote :

"So you expect people in poverty to go childless? I mean, I've observed what I would consider extremely irresponsible sexual behavior. I met a 26-year-old who had 7 children by 6 different women (in real life and everything! not just some dude I could gawk at on Judge Joe Brown!)...and, you know me, I think he's clearly mentally ill, but whatever...those situations are very rare. These days, most folks are having 1 to 3 children, not the 6 that the OP cited, and they're not motivated by subsidies and tax breaks (like you already noted). They just want to have children, and it's an immutable condition for most of us that normal government policy is not going to influence one way or another. And the urge to kill is nothing like the urge procreate. That's not even a reach...it's like a crazy, outlandish leap or something."

If people in poverty are going to have children, who do you think is going to pay for them? The impoverished parents? They don't have the money. Is your position that the government should come in and provide health insurance/food/whatever for those kids? You can set the record straight right now, and prove me wrong, by saying that you do not want the government to pay for their expenses.

There is no "right" to have children. If you have children, you should be prepared to provide for them. If you cannot pay for them, you should be willing to give them up. If we just accept that everyone has a natural desire to procreate (and I don't believe everyone does), should we accept that everyone has a right to have children and then have them provided for by a third party?

Quote :

"Except the children, who will grow up to learn that they were sold like cattle."

They wouldn't be sold like cattle. The children would not be for sale; as I mentioned before, the child should be considered its own individual, with self-ownership. What's for sale is the trustee guardianship of those children. You would buy the opportunity to raise that child. Is that worse than the alternative, where they grow up in poverty, probably receiving poor education and nutrition? I understand that the idea of "selling children" seems like a shock at first, but I think it would end up benefiting children greatly.

1/26/2010 4:45:28 PM

^^10 yr old sex slaves for the winz

Quote :

"I say leave them with the mother who loves them. "

you mean the welfare queen, who had her house foreclosed on, and whose father signed on to another tour working for a contractors
in Iraq just to keep his daughters brood well fed.

Quote :

"please do not reference me in a thread to which I have not contributed. It is always obnoxious, but in this instance, it's also lazy and pathetic. "

usually this is my job

Quote :

"There is no "right" to have children SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAX-PAYER. If you have children, you should be prepared to provide for them"

Fixed it

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM. Reason : a]

1/26/2010 4:48:12 PM

Quote :

"What's for sale is the trustee guardianship of those children. You would buy the opportunity to raise that child."

Well, first of all, good luck explaining that to a child.

Regardless, if there is an unwanted child and someone willing to take them, why are we selling anything? The willing party can just adopt it. If the ones giving the child away are only going to do it unless they get something out of it, that's just creepy.

Quote :

"you mean the welfare queen, who had her house foreclosed on, and whose father signed on to another tour working for a contractors in Iraq just to keep his daughters brood well fed."

She has her faults, just as your mother obviously did.

1/26/2010 6:03:36 PM

Quote :

"If the ones giving the child away are only going to do it unless they get something out of it, that's just creepy."

I'm sure quite often the price would be zero or an agreement that the parents can remain part of the child's life. Whatever happens, what we have now sucks. It is rife with paperwork and takebacksies.

1/26/2010 6:28:57 PM

Put saltpeter in their free food.

/thread

1/26/2010 7:34:09 PM

at first i thought this was "tragedy of the commons"

then i realized it was just "lifeboat ethics" with a twang to it

1/26/2010 7:48:00 PM

this thread is completely full of stupid, gonna stick to sports talk for now on...which, i'll admit, isn't much better



[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 8:02 PM. Reason : nevermind]

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ..]

1/26/2010 7:57:20 PM

they both have an equal effect on the outcome of the things they complain about

p.s. i'll see you there

1/26/2010 7:59:34 PM

Let me start out by saying that by and large I am opposed to almost all forms of welfare, government aid, and government sponsored healthcare. There are a few exceptions and there are times that we should assist our fellow man with tax funded assistance, but for the most part I believe it's a bad idea that rests on a morally untenable foundation. However, under the current system this is what I believe we should do:

Every time someone comes to pick up a government assistance check it should come with a drug test and a birth control shot or pill. If you already can't afford to pull your own weight you should not be adding additional strain to the system by funneling money into a black market economy or adding more mouths for your neighbors to feed. Your children are not my responsibility. I will not punish the child by denying them access to food and education once they are already here, but until you can pay for to provide it to them yourself having another one should not be an option. And no, just for the record I would not force abortion or adoption if birth control later failed.

Personally I couldn't care less about drug use, but as long as drug use is illegal staying clean should be a requirement. I'd also like to see nicotine testing and a "smoker's penalty" as it would add strain to the healthcare system. We also need to seriously revise what can and cannot be purchased with food stamps/EBT. If there were a test that could detect alcohol use I'd be in favor of that as well. If you want everyone else to pay for your stuff the least we can demand in return is that you take better care of yourself.

Before anyone starts screaming about "forced birth control" and social engineering stop and realize that taking government assistance is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't take the money. It's about damned time we started attaching more strings to the money we dole out.

1/26/2010 8:32:37 PM

^I'm not going to lie, I read the last line first because i was expecting 'yo holmes to bel air!'


but after reading your post I do agree with you and think that would be a step in the right direction. I would like to add another requirement being proof that you are actively seeking employment if you are unemployed. And also some sort of requirement to either get at least a high school education if you don't already have one which could be state/federally funded as well.

I'm a strong supporter of providing the people with the tools and means to help themselves.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2010 8:55:11 PM

Yeah, actively seeking employment should be a given. A lot of people receiving food stamps are already employed, they just aren't earning enough to support themselves, so I might be willing to give them a pass provided they meet the other criteria.

The other thing I'd mandate is forced community service. As long as you are taking government assistance you must perform, let's say, 8-40 hours of community service per week at an approved location dependent on your employment status. Something like highway trash pick up or working at a food bank. If high school students can be forced to do it as a requirement of graduation than why not those receiving welfare?

1/26/2010 9:01:39 PM

WTF! I disagree completely. There are very good policy reasons why poor people remain poor, we can fix those (not likely, but more likely than your proposal), which would make them productive members of society again! As such, no, the more people we have the better. We need a next generation first and foremost, I don't care where it comes from. As such, I say keep them breeding.

1/26/2010 9:04:09 PM

^I don't even know wtf you are trying to say in your troll attempt?

1/26/2010 9:06:32 PM

I am saying my opinion that mandatory birth control is a bad idea in the long-run. Never-mind that such a requirement would be wrong morally. If you want to stop incentiving people on welfare to breed, fine. But mandatory drug testing and birth control and the like is just wrong. Stop trying to use government money to micromanage people's personal lives.

1/26/2010 9:24:14 PM

^you missed the part where we said taking the hand outs is optional, therefore any requirements that come along with it are also optional.

1/26/2010 9:27:26 PM

It looks like most people in this thread have no idea how welfare works, and have dumb opinions about it as a result.

1/26/2010 9:37:16 PM