Uncontrolled Breeding Has to STOP!

FedUpAmerican · #31 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:58 PM

On second thought, that IS all of them.

Still Dizzy · #32 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cottonbroker

It just pisses me off to see these people sucking the system dry dragging around 5-6 offspring. There should be a law that says "if you have more than 2 kids you will be taxed accordingly" instead of given a tax break for reproducing and/or collecting welfare. I was at the Dentist and this little fucker about 12 years old says to his mom "howww yoouuu doinggg". I bet the mom, dad and kid had a combined IQ of maybe 150 on a good day. These Mexicans and others who reproduce like rabbits should be dealt with harshly, by taxing their stupid asses out of the country. I hope like hell that moron I saw at the dentist office never runs for public office......

See you got it all wrong. Instead of a tax, the 'Great Democratic Welfare Plan' REWARDS them with MORE welfare for each child.
The Dems believe in breeding voters.

ricechickie · #33 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cottonbroker

Yea, if a woman is rich enough and smart enough and can maintain that status then who cares if she overproduces? I still do not believe she should enjoy tax benefits from deductions on dependants and nor should anyone else.

Well, in my scenario, all of the nasty stereotypes were gone, but the woman was still receiving benefits (food stamps).

And why shouldn't we get tax benefits? The government likes to encourage reproduction. The whole hetero-marriage crowd says so!

Besides, if you're against overbreeding, I would invite you to get a vasectomy.

FedUpAmerican · #34 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

See you got it all wrong. Instead of a tax, the 'Great Democratic Welfare Plan' REWARDS them with MORE welfare for each child.
The Dems believe in breeding voters.

And the soon to be extinct republicans believe in sending them off to die.

Gummer · #35 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

What if you see a well-kept, fit woman with three or four well-kept, well-behaved children in tow, buying healthy food with food stamps?

And why do you assume the public assistance began with the first child?

I mean, I know that doesn't paint the picture you like to use.....

You construct a totally different circumstance than the one i made reference to.....

I'll provide my opinion for your scenario ......

But I must ask..... first....

Which turn of fate placed your woman in the circumstance you describe?

Is she an attractive well groomed woman whose panties fly off in the presence of a male erection (consequences be damned)? If so I have already addressed the subject.....

Look ...... I thought I made it clear ..... I have no quarrel with public assistance for for those who may have made a youthful mistake or others who have fallen on hard times (although I didn't make that point specifically) ...... My quarrel is with those who take no personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof .... and are conditioned or willing to pass their self created responsibilities to taxpayers who ARE assuming responsibility for their deeds.....

We haven't followed an attitude anything like that ....... as a result of our failure to do so we have (in some extreme cases) 3 generations of people whose "family business" is public assistance.....

Any intelligently constructed public assistance program should have a beginning ... a middle ..... and ..... an end..... with strings (responsibilities) tied to it's continuity....

Public assistance should NEVER be an option for people to count on to assume their personal responsibilities ..... for life....

naturemomma · #36 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Atcha

Good God, is everyone on these boards a master at misdirecting blame for social ills and political foibles?

What about the family of seven that has honor students, talented musicians, and community spirit? Are they to be penalized by this third+ child tax for raising productive members of society? Is it really the number of people being born into this country, or their perceived value as educated people?

Maybe TV and video games play a role in allowing the youngsters to use their time for pursuits other than learning. Maybe it's the parents apathy to having the kids in the first place, the same apathy and lack of information that resulted in under use of contraception. Maybe it's the poor state of our public schools. Perhaps it's the fact that Americans each withdraw from their communities, unwilling to help their neighbors or get involved until someone else does first.

How many brothers and sisters a child has, has no bearing on their intelligence or value in society. How they are raised and the involvement of those in their community does. Get off your asses, stop bitching and GET INVOLVED!

As for the birth rate... there is an economic principle that says that [the more hands you have to do work, the more productive an economy is, the more prosperous are it's people]. The birthrate is not the problem.

I agree. If people got off their lazy asses, and attempted to do something beneficial for their community, we might not be in this mess.

And people have to decide what is important. Sooo many people say that educating kids about sex, vd, and pregnancy is wrong, and it shouldn't occur in school... so what happens? More stupid, uneducated people breed. Either we are on the side of education or stupidity - pick a side....

My huband is one of 7 kids. All of them are college graduates. All of them worked for what they have. All of them contribute to society. Many people today do not. Many people are a drain. Many people are too stupid to even know what a drain they are. Nevertheless, stupid people also have the right to breed.... Someone mentioned China and placing limitations on births... They live in a communist society, we do not. Though we may be on the verge - we are not there yet, and I for one would like to keep it that way.

naturemomma · #37 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

You construct a totally different circumstance than the one i made reference to.....

I'll provide my opinion for your scenario ......

But I must ask..... first....

Which turn of fate placed your woman in the circumstance you describe?

Is she an attractive well groomed woman whose panties fly off in the presence of a male erection (consequences be damned)? If so I have already addressed the subject.....

Look ...... I thought I made it clear ..... I have no quarrel with public assistance for for those who may have made a youthful mistake or others who have fallen on hard times (although I didn't make that point specifically) ...... My quarrel is with those who take no personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof .... and are conditioned or willing to pass their self created responsibilities to taxpayers who ARE assuming responsibility for their deeds.....

We haven't followed an attitude anything like that ....... as a result of our failure to do so we have (in some extreme cases) 3 generations of people whose "family business" is public assistance.....

Any intelligently constructed public assistance program should have a beginning ... a middle ..... and ..... an end..... with strings (responsibilities) tied to it's continuity....

Public assistance should NEVER be an option for people to count on to assume their personal responsibilities ..... for life....

Public assistance for life? Where do you live? It just doesn't happen. 2 years, that's all ya get. President Clinton was the one who put an end to that. Gone are the days of a fatter check for the more kids you have, it doesn't work that way...anymore.

ricechickie · #38 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

You construct a totally different circumstance than the one i made reference to.....

Yeah, I constructed a scenario in which the woman appears "normal," and her children appear "normal." And yet they require assistance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

I'll provide my opinion for your scenario ......

But I must ask..... first....

Which turn of fate placed your woman in the circumstance you describe?

Is she an attractive well groomed woman whose panties fly off in the presence of a male erection (consequences be damned)? If so I have already addressed the subject.....

Perhaps she's a woman who had children and a husband and provided for them, and the husband died (without insurance) or left her. In that case, having the children might not have plunged her into poverty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

Look ...... I thought I made it clear ..... I have no quarrel with public assistance for for those who may have made a youthful mistake or others who have fallen on hard times (although I didn't make that point specifically)

Thanks for the clarification. Not all public assistance cases are due to untimely, unplanned pregnancies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

...... My quarrel is with those who take no personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof .... and are conditioned or willing to pass their self created responsibilities to taxpayers who ARE assuming responsibility for their deeds.....

We haven't followed an attitude anything like that ....... as a result of our failure to do so we have (in some extreme cases) 3 generations of people whose "family business" is public assistance.....

Any intelligently constructed public assistance program should have a beginning ... a middle ..... and ..... an end..... with strings (responsibilities) tied to it's continuity....

Public assistance should NEVER be an option for people to count on to assume their personal responsibilities ..... for life....

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the broad brush paints anyone on assistance as a "welfare lifer." And the stereotypes you presented are what I really had a problem with. Yes, there are welfare lifers, fat moms with awful kids, but guess what? Even without being on welfare, she'd be just as fat and probably just as bad a parent.

Gummer · #39 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

Public assistance for life? Where do you live? It just doesn't happen. 2 years, that's all ya get. President Clinton was the one who put an end to that. Gone are the days of a fatter check for the more kids you have, it doesn't work that way...anymore.

I am well aware that welfare reform was put into place in the 90's and it has done some good.

While you give President Clinton credit for signing the the welfare reform bill (and I give him that credit too)....are you aware of the FACT that it even EVER came to be...... was because Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" congress passed it and Clinton merely signed it (finger held to the wind of public opinion) because he could hardly do otherwise?

naturemomma · #40 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummer

I am well aware that welfare reform was put into place in the 90's and it has done some good.

While you give President Clinton credit for signing the the welfare reform bill (and I give him that credit too)....are you aware of the FACT that it even EVER came to be...... was because Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" congress passed it and Clinton merely signed it (finger held to the wind of public opinion) because he could hardly do otherwise?

I could care less who or why it came about. I referred to Clinton because it gives a timeline as to how long it has been reformed.

I agree with several points you made, the lifetime thing got to me, because it's just not accurate.