New spin on the welfare debate.

[CZB1962]

Here is my vote for the first implant. https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ry-indystar-you-will-lose-faith-humanity.html

 

[copperhead-1911]

Neither is owning property as the state, county, and .gov can come and take your land if they believe that would be a good place for a road.

Most people don't know this, but the eminent domain case ruled in the governments favor with the liberal justices being in favor of eminent domain. I have had many people try to say the conservative justices did it because they were big business interests.

I think eminent domain really does not sit well when looking at the third amendment. It implies a man's home is his castle and eminent domain flies in the face of that.

In many places you also never truly own property because you still have to pay property taxes

 

[sun]

It seems like most liberals I debate always want to go to the corporate tax issue and pretend that public welfare is not an issue as well. For me, they are both issues.

Now the dreaded liberal name tag is applied.
FWIW, the use of contraceptives is considered to be liberal, whether it's part of government coercion or not.
After all, the PETA group wants to implement a similar plan of feeding contraceptives to deer to control their population so that they don't over-reproduce and starve, rather than to allow them to simply be hunted for food. And PETA is a radical liberal group.
When folks advocate coercing mostly minority single mothers into having a contraceptive implant in order to obtain mediocre welfare benefits to feed their often illegitimate children, that's more than a liberal plan, that's a radically liberal amount of government intervention.
Whether it's PETA and deer or humans on welfare, using such contraceptives is what is liberal. And when government coerces their use it's radical.
The conservative approach would be to not medically intervene to alter the nature of human or deer sexual behavior "for their own betterment and survival". That's like advocating the intrusion of Big Brother ("1984").
America tends to be more truly conservative and not so tactically liberal/radical.
The American government actually funds a youth program in urban areas that teaches abstinence to female teenagers, and offers them activities to increase the self-esteem of these young teens, so that they don't feel that they need to have children so young in order to have self-worth. That's the traditionally conservative American approach to dealing with teen pregnancy. That and some free condoms from Planned Parenthood.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Now the dreaded liberal name tag is applied.
FWIW, the use of contraceptives is considered to be liberal, whether it's part of government coercion or not.
After all, the PETA group wants to implement a similar plan of feeding contraceptives to deer to control their population so that they don't over-reproduce and starve, rather than to allow them to simply be hunted for food. And PETA is a radical liberal group.
When folks advocate coercing mostly minority single mothers into having a contraceptive implant in order to obtain mediocre welfare benefits to feed their often illegitimate children, that's more than a liberal plan, that's a radically liberal amount of government intervention.
Whether it's PETA and deer or humans on welfare, using such contraceptives is what is liberal. And when government coerces their use it's radical.
The conservative approach would be to not medically intervene to alter the nature of human or deer sexual behavior "for their own betterment and survival". That's like advocating the intrusion of Big Brother ("1984").
America tends to be more truly conservative and not so tactically liberal/radical.
The American government actually funds a youth program in urban areas that teaches abstinence to female teenagers, and offers them activities to increase the self-esteem of these young teens, so that they don't feel that they need to have children so young in order to have self-worth. That's the traditionally conservative American approach to dealing with teen pregnancy. That and some free condoms from Planned Parenthood.

You make a point, but lets not forget that as you say it effects "Mostly minority single mothers" they often are voting for those wanting to take our guns and are more likely to have kids that are far more likely to go into the criminal justice system.

Think of it this way. We are feeding "people" who ultimately vote to take our guns away and have kids that are more likely to be burdens on the taxpayer or victimize taxpayers. The second amendment is clearly in the constitution. Welfare is an overreach of the federal government.

I stand by my opinion that it is valid to at least talk about. Welfare is not a right. They don't have to take it. It is a privilege. We cant claim right to privacy if we don't want to take a pee test for a job. They want to keep breeding kids they cant afford then they can GET A JOB

Silhouettes Get A Job A B 1958 - YouTube

People don't have to have sex unless they are raped. I have no doubt a majority figure more kids more money. Pathetic. The only thing more pathetic are liberals in our government who use our tax dollars to bribe votes.

 

[stevee]

Those lazy freeloaders on the WPA. Two a s******* two a comin, two a goin, and two leanin on shovels. SOS!

 

[sun]

You make a point, but lets not forget that as you say it effects "Mostly minority single mothers" they often are voting for those wanting to take our guns and are more likely to have kids that are far more likely to go into the criminal justice system.

Think of it this way. We are feeding "people" who ultimately vote to take our guns away and have kids that are more likely to be burdens on the taxpayer or victimize taxpayers. The second amendment is clearly in the constitution. Welfare is an overreach of the federal government.

I stand by my opinion that it is valid to at least talk about. Welfare is not a right. They don't have to take it. It is a privilege. We cant claim right to privacy if we don't want to take a pee test for a job. They want to keep breeding kids they cant afford then they can GET A JOB

Silhouettes Get A Job A B 1958 - YouTube

People don't have to have sex unless they are raped. I have no doubt a majority figure more kids more money. Pathetic. The only thing more pathetic are liberals in our government who use our tax dollars to bribe votes.

That's just like saying that if folks don't like the way that the welfare system is run in this country or in their state then they can just move.
For the most part, I don't see middle class folks becoming broke by paying their state or Federal income taxes.
If they feel that they are then they can vote with their feet and move to another state or country. But complaining about welfare payments causing the demise of the 2nd Amendment is laughable.
If welfare children are causing more crime, then that should enhance the people's need for more self-defense.
Most of the recent mass murderers in the U.S. seem to be caucasians from rather affluent families like in Newtown.
And they're the ones that are hurting the 2A.
There was one Asian mass murderer at Virgina Tech, but again he was someone with more education who was a college student.
There was Columbine, and the Joker from the Aurora movie theater who was a dropout graduate student.
And another 22 year old caucasian nut job named Jared Loughner who killed 6 and injured 19 in Arizona including Congresswomen Giffords and a Federal Judge.
So it's laughable and disingenuous to blame the recent demise of gun rights in some states on minorities who are on welfare and committing crimes. Especially since Congresswomen Giffords became another martyr like Brady did and got involved with the Newtown victim's families on the national level.
I left out George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Not a mass murderer but in the national news and alarming the soccer moms. The same soccer moms that prompted Dick's to pull guns off their shelves after Newtown.
Most people receiving welfare probably don't even vote, so I doubt that they are really getting bribed by receiving welfare.
Maybe some folks don't like O'bama or the minorities that voted for him whether they receive any welfare or not. It was a landslide Electoral College victory that wasn't based on people who were were on welfare voting for him. But rather based on national policies that did not include gun control issues. Especially since Newtown happened after the re-election. And as the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was a poster boy for O'bamacare having implemented it there and just wasn't popular or likable enough nationally.
I would tend to blame caucasian mass murderers who were nut jobs for the recent demise of the 2A more than I could ever blame people who are on welfare being bribed to vote a certain way.

 

[spec4]

sun, the liberal Democrats would have disarmed us long ago given the opportunity. They have been chipping away at this since the thirties. Sadly, the Gun Control Act of 1968 that was going to solve everything, was just another step towards totally disarming us. The recent "caucasian mass murders" that you refer to were simply an opportunity for the Dems to move forward with their agenda. (See; Rahm Emanuel, "Let no crisis go to waste.")

 

[CZB1962]

Now the dreaded liberal name tag is applied.
FWIW, the use of contraceptives is considered to be liberal, whether it's part of government coercion or not.
After all, the PETA group wants to implement a similar plan of feeding contraceptives to deer to control their population so that they don't over-reproduce and starve, rather than to allow them to simply be hunted for food. And PETA is a radical liberal group.
When folks advocate coercing mostly minority single mothers into having a contraceptive implant in order to obtain mediocre welfare benefits to feed their often illegitimate children, that's more than a liberal plan, that's a radically liberal amount of government intervention.
Whether it's PETA and deer or humans on welfare, using such contraceptives is what is liberal. And when government coerces their use it's radical.
The conservative approach would be to not medically intervene to alter the nature of human or deer sexual behavior "for their own betterment and survival". That's like advocating the intrusion of Big Brother ("1984").
America tends to be more truly conservative and not so tactically liberal/radical.
The American government actually funds a youth program in urban areas that teaches abstinence to female teenagers, and offers them activities to increase the self-esteem of these young teens, so that they don't feel that they need to have children so young in order to have self-worth. That's the traditionally conservative American approach to dealing with teen pregnancy. That and some free condoms from Planned Parenthood.

I consider myself somewhat socially liberal and almost always fiscally conservative with a lot of grey mixed in. In other words I look at each separate issue as just that....separate.

I don't really care if you want to have 10 kids as long as you can afford it. I don't care if you want to get married to someone of your own sex as long as you don't expect anything special from me or the government. I also think that if you are physically and mentally normal, you should be working for your living. I believe government should, for the most part, stay out of our lives, but if they are going to have a program IT HAS TO BE PAID FOR and they have a responsibility to stop the abuse!

My liberal comment was not meant as an insult, you chose to take it that way. I am simply saying that I have heard that exact argument from some very liberal people and it amazes me how people can only see one side of an issue. Same goes for some of my very conservative friends who want to run the world based on religion alone.

To me the use of contraception in humans is a fiscal issue. People need to wake up. We simply cannot continue to spend more than we take in. As with the Titanic "it is a mathematical certainty".

 

[copperhead-1911]

sun, the liberal Democrats would have disarmed us long ago given the opportunity. They have been chipping away at this since the thirties. Sadly, the Gun Control Act of 1968 that was going to solve everything, was just another step towards totally disarming us. The recent "caucasian mass murders" that you refer to were simply an opportunity for the Dems to move forward with their agenda. (See; Rahm Emanuel, "Let no crisis go to waste.")

I like to ad that while they were white most days in cities that would be considered black or majority black ( Chicago, Detroit and like so) more than rival the deaths those kids kid. also if you look at various news reports it seems that the kids were often left wing or at least come from leftie housholds.

As far as taxpayers not liking to get their pockets picked for irresponsibility and lack of morality ( I am not talking about people down on their luck. I am talking about leeches) Why should we have to leave? Let the leeches go to states with generous welfare and pathetic gun laws like CA

Also "But complaining about welfare payments causing the demise of the 2nd Amendment is laughable." Come on lets be honest when you look at it there is a simple case of buying votes. This in turn makes people vote for the liberals who want to disarm us. It does bother me when I have to feed someone that will one day rob me or vote away my gun rights because "Da democrats is for us and republicans is against us"

As far as why Obama won. I don't want to get a ban, but I will say not enough white people had pride in their heritage until after they saw the chaos he would cause. I think he caused more division than all but maybe one of the last 43 before him.


Also sun

No offense, You are a yankee. You guys sometimes don't get it. I think if you spent a week in a place that is how democrat policies turn a place like the "diverse" section of Detroit you would think differently. I will never defend segregation, but a prime example super majority of those fighting it in the 60s were from states with no blacks/ The people living with the other races were saying "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever". Again I am not saying segregation is or was right as I am mixed race, but Yankees seem great at telling other people how to live their own lives.

Again I am not condoning racism or segregation, but as a student of history I know that many northerners were just as if not more racist than slave owners and I find yankee or new England opinions on some of these issues laughable.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Good piece today

Congressman Gohmert: I got into politics to stop paying poor women to have kids - BizPac Review

 

[sun]

If welfare moms decided to keep having kids and refused to be implanted with a contraceptive, then the moms wouldn't be able to take care of them and the state would end up taking custody of countless numbers of kids. And over time there would be a humongous new bureaucracy created to take care of them all which could cost even more money because new institutions would need to be built and staffed.
And the costs for a decent level of care for these "orphans" would be even more enormous than imagined.
There already aren't enough foster parents and per kid, they probably cost the state even more money than welfare payments.
More kids with more mental problems from being raised in institutionalized orphanages of some sort and never loved.
I'm sure that's not what everyone wants but that could be the scenario.
Yet folks could keep having kids and just handing them over to the state at birth like they already can if they want to.
It's actually encouraged here to drop newborn babies off at any hospital after birth without prosecution to protect them rather than being suffocated and found dead in dumpsters and trash cans.
So why try to fool ourselves and think that folks will be responsible simply by hoping to end welfare and to save money when these women refused to be implanted?
It's a complicated subject but from a human rights point of view it's very simple.
The system is the way that it is for a reason. The politicians are elected to study these issues. Folks shouldn't let their emotions and their wallet dictate what's in the best interest of a free society and for these kids. Each kid has individual rights to be raised by their own mom and be with their own siblings and family if at all possible.
And even if an elderly family member takes some kids in then they will still receive welfare benefits. There will always be loopholes.
By and large, politicians of both parties follow a human rights creed rather than enacting policies based on simple taxpayer greed.

 

[copperhead-1911]

If welfare moms decided to keep having kids and refused to be implanted with a contraceptive, then the moms wouldn't be able to take care of them and the state would end up taking custody of countless numbers of kids. And over time there would be a humongous new bureaucracy created to take care of them all which could cost even more money because new institutions would need to be built and staffed.
And the costs for a decent level of care for these "orphans" would be even more enormous than imagined.
There already aren't enough foster parents and per kid, they probably cost the state even more money than welfare payments.
More kids with more mental problems from being raised in institutionalized orphanages of some sort and never loved.
I'm sure that's not what everyone wants but that could be the scenario.
Yet folks could keep having kids and just handing them over to the state at birth like they already can if they want to.
It's actually encouraged here to drop newborn babies off at any hospital after birth without prosecution to protect them rather than being suffocated and found dead in dumpsters and trash cans.
So why try to fool ourselves and think that folks will be responsible simply by hoping to end welfare and to save money when these women refused to be implanted?
It's a complicated subject but from a human rights point of view it's very simple.
The system is the way that it is for a reason. The politicians are elected to study these issues. Folks shouldn't let their emotions and their wallet dictate what's in the best interest of a free society and for these kids. Each kid has individual rights to be raised by their own mom and be with their own siblings and family if at all possible.
And even if an elderly family member takes some kids in then they will still receive welfare benefits. There will always be loopholes.
By and large, politicians of both parties follow a human rights creed rather than enacting policies based on simple taxpayer greed.

I get a lot of what you are saying, but welfare is not a right and the ideas you project are basically saying the taxpayer is held hostage and there is nothing we can do. Now where would we have been in 1776 with that attitude. Something can always ben done.

Honestly I would be ok with paying the breeders a little bonus not to have kids. Or little extra cash per month if on norplant or something.

The abuses in the system are too great and we cant go on this way forever and it bothers me for losers to ruin our country because they vote but really put nothing into the system but take lots of stuff out. Most don't like this fact, but universal suffrage was never intended that is why you had to own property. I am not saying we go back to that, but I think skin in the game is important and keeping welfare is not skin in the game to me.

 

[cobber]

If welfare moms decided to keep having kids and refused to be implanted with a contraceptive, then the moms wouldn't be able to take care of them and the state would end up taking custody of countless numbers of kids. And over time there would be a humongous new bureaucracy created to take care of them all which could cost even more money because new institutions would need to be built and staffed.

Tubal ligation, if they persist. You have the right to have kids, but not to leave them at society's doorstep.

And the costs for a decent level of care for these "orphans" would be even more enormous than imagined.
There already aren't enough foster parents and per kid, they probably cost the state even more money than welfare payments.
More kids with more mental problems from being raised in institutionalized orphanages of some sort and never loved.
I'm sure that's not what everyone wants but that could be the scenario.
Yet folks could keep having kids and just handing them over to the state at birth like they already can if they want to.
It's actually encouraged here to drop newborn babies off at any hospital after birth without prosecution to protect them rather than being suffocated and found dead in dumpsters and trash cans.
So why try to fool ourselves and think that folks will be responsible simply by hoping to end welfare and to save money when these women refused to be implanted?
It's a complicated subject but from a human rights point of view it's very simple.

Again. You take the benefit, you have no choice as to implantation. Or surgery. It's very simple. You do not have the right to force me to pay for the children you have by design or mistake. Or if you believe that, would you like to assume my mortgage?

The system is the way that it is for a reason. The politicians are elected to study these issues. Folks shouldn't let their emotions and their wallet dictate what's in the best interest of a free society and for these kids. Each kid has individual rights to be raised by their own mom and be with their own siblings and family if at all possible.
And even if an elderly family member takes some kids in then they will still receive welfare benefits. There will always be loopholes.
By and large, politicians of both parties follow a human rights creed rather than enacting policies based on simple taxpayer greed.

The politicians "study" these issues? If that were only remotely the case...

The best interest of a free society is for free men and women not to make themselves unfree through dependency on the government. That they would cede their natural rights voluntarily does not speak to their benevolence. You may choose to enslave yourself on the basis of your decisions, but you have no right to demand that I cede my liberties to facilitate your decision.

Taxpayer greed? We definitely know where you're coming from. The government is primus inter pares, and it's our duty to support it. We don't own our money or stuff. It's the government's for the taking, whether we agree or not. And these lousy parents have the right to force us to pay for their bad decisions. We didn't build that.


Ultimately the problem isn't just the money, but rather that offspring are being created with no prospect of a stable family. Which then leads to more dysfunction and dependency.

Many of these folks' kids greatest expectation will be a place in the dependency class on welfare or disability, or if they're fortunate, a minimum wage job. Many of them won't make it this far even, but are headed into the juvenile and then adult justice systems.





You have a right to have children if you can support them and raise them. If you're just popping them out and passing the bills and maintenance along to someone else, not so much. If you're doing the same while pursuing a career as a criminal, or raising them as juvenile delinquents, double not so much...