Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children - Polidicks

Just cap benefits at X amount of children and don't make it retroactive. Or make it retroactive but not effective immediately, effective after X time frame. Is that so evil? Hell didn't the UK do this or was that just a proposal?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43713613]Is it justified for the children to go without food, education, and healthcare just so that we can try to prove some ridiculous point to their mother?[/QUOTE] That's why I said it is very hard to actually work out practically. No, it isn't. It isn't justified for the mother to let multiple children she knows she can't support be born into poverty, and then expect everyone else to support her and her family either.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43713635]Enforce adoption then. If they can't provide, take the kids away. In fact, I think it would be a great idea to conscript children who get sent to orphanages.[/QUOTE] Never mind the abject horror that any rational person should feel at the [I]thought[/I] of ripping children from their mothers based on factors they have no control over, but to actually suggest conscription, as in compulsory military service, for those same factors? That's insane. God forbid you [I]ever[/I] have a position from which to exercise these reprobate fantasies.

[QUOTE=Aman;43713661]Just cap benefits at X amount of children and don't make it retroactive. Or make it retroactive but not effective immediately, effective after X time frame. Is that so evil? Hell didn't the UK do this or was that just a proposal?[/QUOTE] I dont know man, it still punishes the kid as collateral damage in the end.

[QUOTE=Saxon;43713643]Why is it that poor people have lots of kids anyway? Is it because they're too lazy to use a form of birth control?[/QUOTE] uh statistics say that most "poor people" dont have more kids; you're just a victim of social propaganda and movies and such painting poor people as lazy fucks who have eight kids in third world countries however, they have lots of kids because theirs die quite often at young ages, and because there is no access to birth control (+ rape)

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43713683]uh statistics say that most "poor people" dont have more kids; you're just a victim of social propaganda and movies and such painting poor people as lazy fucks who have eight kids [/QUOTE] you have the stats on hand? Not disagreeing just curious.

[QUOTE=Aman;43713661]Just cap benefits at X amount of children and don't make it retroactive. Or make it retroactive but not effective immediately, effective after X time frame. Is that so evil? Hell didn't the UK do this or was that just a proposal?[/QUOTE] its a solution to a problem that doesnt exist You only hear about "wow all these poor people with all these kids" because of media sensationalism, but there is no statistical evidence to show a significant difference in number of kids in and out of marriage. (in the United States and other first world countries) Similarly, this concept only applies to women who have kids out of marriage. What about those married couples who have tons of kids and abuse the system? They get free rides and only single mothers get the punishment because for some reason, being married denotes how worthy you are of aid?

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43713683]uh statistics say that most "poor people" dont have more kids; you're just a victim of social propaganda and movies and such painting poor people as lazy fucks who have eight kids in third world countries however, they have lots of kids because theirs die quite often at young ages, and because there is no access to birth control (+ rape)[/QUOTE] close enough, but they have more children because they think of children as assets, especially male children. If they have too many female children, they keep trying until they get a boy.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43713670']That's why I said it is very hard to actually work out practically. No, it isn't. It isn't justified for the mother to let multiple children she knows she can't support be born into poverty, and then expect everyone else to support her and her family either.[/QUOTE] Its moments like this where I understand some right wingers in their support of forced sterilization. Unfortunately it sets a pretty dangerous precedent. [video=youtube;RBqjZ0KZCa0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0[/video]

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43713717]close enough, but they have more children because they think of children as assets, especially male children. If they have too many female children, they keep trying until they get a boy.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I thought this was true for rural families of two generations ago? In fact, I keep hearing that more and more people don't even consider the possibility of having two because they can't afford it..

[QUOTE=lapsus_;43713812]I dunno, I thought this was true for rural families of two generations ago?[/QUOTE] We've made some progress out here in educating people, but it's still slow going, especially in the north of the country.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43713635]Enforce adoption then. If they can't provide, take the kids away. In fact, I think it would be a great idea to conscript children who get sent to orphanages.[/QUOTE] My Poe alarm is going fucking crazy right now.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43713516]Some people don't deserve to have kids. Some people don't deserve to breed due to stupidity. That's the upside of things like abortion - better to prevent a pregnancy before the brain cells gestate than to give birth to a life who will only see hardship and poverty. Eugenics could do some good, perhaps things like having a license to have a child would work wonders and solve the problem of stupid, irresponsible people procreating constantly. In all seriousness, if you let human nature work it's way out when dealing with procreation it tends to lead to nothing good. I think this is a great idea though. Disagree with me I could hardly give a fuck.[/QUOTE] holyshit the edgiest man this side of the galaxy has a facepunch account

B-b-but I thought they were pro-life and pro-family!

Why don't we just tell poor people to stop being poor?

that is what happens when you fluoridate the water

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43714458]that is what happens when you fluoridate the water[/QUOTE] I don't get it, that has nothing to do with poverty At all

I see the idea which prevents a lower standard of living with more mouths to feed, however going about it this way only perpetuates the problem especially on those already in the pits. Proactive incentives such as not having too many kids, [I]before conception[/I], could increase the standard of living for the family and betters them in the long run. Win, win. You want to reward responsibility with positive reinforcement, not punishment.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43713609][B]Racism is a thing of the past.[/B][/QUOTE] Wow.

Can we penalize him every time he opens his mouth? (And a few people in this thread.)

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43713670']That's why I said it is very hard to actually work out practically. No, it isn't. It isn't justified for the mother to let multiple children she knows she can't support be born into poverty, and then expect everyone else to support her and her family either.[/QUOTE] Yo, here's the deal dogg; the amount of burden placed on the taxpayer by poor women who have more children than they can support is infinitesimal compared to the burden placed on the taxpayer by the American military industrial complex and by the countless large corporations in the US which use tax loopholes to pay zero effective taxes; this is something you don't ever hear Rand Paul and his ilk complain about. Complaining about poor people who receive government benefits is just a (racist, sexist, classist) scapegoat that corporatists and free market jerkoffs can use to distract people from the actual biggest thieves in the US; large businesses and wealthy individuals who shirk their taxes and use the American taxpayer like a bank account.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;43713627]You should try and sell it as a sub-plot for a dystopian novel. Would turn out to be a [i]Children of men[/i], but with a political statement.[/QUOTE] I'm considering it.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43714601]Yo, here's the deal dogg; the amount of burden placed on the taxpayer by poor women who have more children than they can support is infinitesimal compared to the burden placed on the taxpayer by the American military industrial complex and by the countless large corporations in the US which use tax loopholes to pay zero effective taxes; this is something you don't ever hear Rand Paul and his ilk complain about. Complaining about poor people who receive government benefits is just a (racist, sexist, classist) scapegoat that corporatists and free market jerkoffs can use to distract people from the actual biggest thieves in the US; large businesses and wealthy individuals who shirk their taxes and use the American taxpayer like a bank account.[/QUOTE] Generally, 'shut up because this other problem is worse' isn't really a good argument.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43714820]Generally, 'shut up because this other problem is worse' isn't really a good argument.[/QUOTE] "America's sex education system is garbage" and "single mothers without college degrees have so few opportunities for gainful employment that they need to take advantage of benefits to survive" are both legitimate problems. "Poor women are breeding like rabbits and stealing your precious tax dollars" is only a problem if you're the kind of ignorant sexist fuckup who buys that kind of line (like the people who vote for Rand Paul).

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43714601]Yo, here's the deal dogg; the amount of burden placed on the taxpayer by poor women who have more children than they can support is infinitesimal compared to the burden placed on the taxpayer by the American military industrial complex and by the countless large corporations in the US which use tax loopholes to pay zero effective taxes; this is something you don't ever hear Rand Paul and his ilk complain about. Complaining about poor people who receive government benefits is just a (racist, sexist, classist) scapegoat that corporatists and free market jerkoffs can use to distract people from the actual biggest thieves in the US; large businesses and wealthy individuals who shirk their taxes and use the American taxpayer like a bank account.[/QUOTE] And that is exactly why I support complete tax reform with removing almost all deduction and loopholes, and cutting military budget + renegotiating with contractors who are ripping us off. I hate corruption and cronyism Your numbers are wrong though. Means tested welfare is a massive burden on the nations budget and those who do pay taxes. I believe larger than either of those. Not to say we should cut it to those who need it, but to those who take advantage of the system, we should do what we can to stop it. As I said it is a very hard issue do to the children, and I am not quite sure of a suitable solution myself. Doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's not racist, sexist, or classist (is that even a word?) to cut. In fact, if I am correct, an unmarried white woman on average receives more welfare, and the whole system is set up against a single father.

[QUOTE=Reshy;43714316]B-b-but I thought they were pro-life and pro-family![/QUOTE] Pro life until you're born.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43713594][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Usafum9.jpg[/IMG] basically all you need to know[/QUOTE] Good god, I remember I was in the living room and my parents were watching this WITH STRAIGHT FACES.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43714911]"America's sex education system is garbage" and "single mothers without college degrees have so few opportunities for gainful employment that they need to take advantage of benefits to survive" are both legitimate problems.[/QUOTE] And 'some people unfairly exploit the welfare system' isn't? Nobody's saying it's the end of the world and an unsupportable drain on our country's resources or whatever but you sure seem to be saying 'ignore it because these other problems are worse', and then adding in the snide implication that anyone who disagrees is sexist, racist, classist, and an idiot to boot. The existence of bigger problems doesn't mean you should ignore the small ones altogether.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43714918'] Your numbers are wrong though. Means tested welfare is a massive burden on the nations budget and those who do pay taxes. [/QUOTE] No, "welfare as a whole" is a large portion of the US's budget but, "women who have children for the express purpose of receiving benefits" (aka the only people who would think twice if the government were to levy a penalty on women who have children) is a non-number; it is a value that is impossible to deduce with any sort of statistical analysis. I mean Rand Paul, who is notoriously anti-choice, also wants to punish women who have children? Doesn't this strike you as just a bunch of bullshit?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43715066]No, "welfare as a whole" is a large portion of the US's budget but, "women who have children for the express purpose of receiving benefits" (aka the only people who would think twice if the government were to levy a penalty on women who have children) is a non-number; it is a value that is impossible to deduce with any sort of statistical analysis. I mean Rand Paul, who is notoriously anti-choice, also wants to punish women who have children? Doesn't this strike you as just a bunch of bullshit?[/QUOTE] Few women want to have children for the express purpose of receiving benefits. It is women who have 4 or 5 or 6 children, and just expect benefits to pay for as many as they want to have. It is both unfair the those who pay for it, and unfair for those children. When they have that many children, which by the way is completely there own choice, they can't really work. They have to stay at home and take care of them. I see cases like this in my own life fairly commonly. It's something that should be kept in check. Something should be done about it, even if it is only a small percentage. By the way, 35% of the US population is on some form of means-tested welfare.