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

[QUOTE=catbarf;43715003]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 [/QUOTE] No, Fox News an right wing politicians super do that. [img]http://cdn.redalertpolitics.com/files/2014/01/fox-news-entitlement-nation.jpg[/img] Ever since Reagan, complaining about poor people (typically female, implicitly black, [see: 'welfare queens who drive cadillacs']) as one of the biggest drains on society has been one of the central rallying cries of the American right wing. It's political rhetoric which uses fear of 'others' to rally up a base of poor white voters who would see next to no actual benefit, as taxpayers, from tightening the range of people who can receive benefits. What, you think Rand Paul wants to use the money saved from welfare reform to lower the payroll tax, a tax which has generally been completely absent from most Republican tax cut proposals? The entire narrative is bullshit.

this is a good plan because everyone knows the thing that poor people need most of all is less money

sure that'll get something done, totally..... fuck has never heard of utilitarianism, doing the most work, helping the most people, for the least amount of effort. any law according to utilitarianism, must work to help people, fining people for having children is not going to fix any problem because the children are ultimately the ones suffering from the law. if he wanted to do anything serious he could float the idea of providing single women with free financial councilors

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43715146']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.[/QUOTE] Yo; here's what I think should be done about that: I think we should have better education in this country and a higher minimum wage, considering the fact that one of the biggest determining factors in the number of children people have is affluence. People who make more money and are better educated typically have fewer children. Targeting the women who have more children than they can support and penalizing them is so completely wrongheaded a solution to that problem that it boggles the mind. It will absolutely not make the problem better, it will just screw over a bunch of young kids.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43713365]which was a liberal program?[/QUOTE] Yeah, what a sad time in history that was. Good thing we also had great conservative programs like the New Deal.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43715217]Yo; here's what I think should be done about that: I think we should have better education in this country and a higher minimum wage, considering the fact that one of the biggest determining factors in the number of children people have is affluence. People who make more money and are better educated typically have fewer children. Targeting the women who have more children than they can support and penalizing them is so completely wrongheaded a solution to that problem that it boggles the mind. It will absolutely not make the problem better, it will just screw over a bunch of young kids.[/QUOTE] The education debate is difficult to address. Just from personal experience, our education system is fine compared to the rest of the world, IF the student puts in the effort. A huge percentage just don't, though. If you are referring specifically to sex-ed, then, really I think most are intelligent enough to figure it out. Should it be taught? sure. I think the biggest problem is just people disregarding it. Pretty much anyone who gets pregnant knows how it happens, they just don't consider it in the moment. Handing out condoms and education and anything else might help a little bit, but really personal choice is the problem. I am of the opinion that people in this situation should have some form of financial social case worker to help them out. It is very hands on, but I think benefits should be best managed on a case by case basis and be partially dependent on actual effort and usage of them. We should do all we can to discourage having children that you can't afford though this venue.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43715352']The education debate is difficult to address. Just from personal experience, our education system is fine compared to the rest of the world, IF the student puts in the effort. A huge percentage just don't, though.[/QUOTE] We should cut benefits to families who's children can't make good grades.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43715157]No, Fox News an right wing politicians super do that.[/QUOTE] But nobody in this thread is saying anything of the kind. Nobody here has said that this is an enormous problem that needs to take top priority because welfare abusers are ruining our economy or whatever, regardless of what Fox News is saying. You are the one who came in to say 'well these other problems are way worse so shut up and stop complaining, also you're probably sexist, racist, and classist if you disagree', and that's really dumb. I don't care what Rand Paul thinks, what Fox News says, or how much the military costs in comparison, I think people shouldn't be able to exploit the welfare system as a matter of principle. There are so many societal issues that are relatively minor compared to the enormous cost of the military, and there are so many issues that get misrepresented or blown out of proportion by the media, but it certainly doesn't make them irrelevant or not worth trying to fix.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;43715409]We should cut benefits to families who's children can't make good grades.[/QUOTE] Frankly that isn't as evil of a thing as it sounds. Good grades aren't very hard. Just put in some basic effort and, assuming no mental defects outlying circumstances, you can pass. Plus that is making the children's benefits depend on the children, not the parents. It teaches the children to do a bit of work, and the parents to try to keep there children in line. It would still need to be closely watched though.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43715454']Frankly that isn't as evil of a thing as it sounds. Good grades aren't very hard. Just put in some basic effort and, assuming no mental defects outlying circumstances, you can pass.[/QUOTE] Have you seen what happened with No Child Left Behind? Considering the enormous degrees of variance between schools, assigning financial consequences to often arbitrary grades is a terrible idea. Every school is different, hell, every teacher is different. Not to mention that for a lot of kids who have trouble in school, there are problems outside of school. 'Just put in some basic effort' might not be so easy for the kid trying to, y'know, live on welfare.

[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. "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] Joking aside, this.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43715454']Frankly that isn't as evil of a thing as it sounds. Good grades aren't very hard. Just put in some basic effort and, assuming no mental defects outlying circumstances, you can pass. Plus that is making the children's benefits depend on the children, not the parents. It teaches the children to do a bit of work, and the parents to try to keep there children in line. It would still need to be closely watched though.[/QUOTE] It was a joke are you serious.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];43715454']Frankly that isn't as evil of a thing as it sounds. Good grades aren't very hard. Just put in some basic effort and, assuming no mental defects outlying circumstances, you can pass. Plus that is making the children's benefits depend on the children, not the parents. It teaches the children to do a bit of work, and the parents to try to keep there children in line. It would still need to be closely watched though.[/QUOTE] You have no idea how bad the education system really is in deeply povertous areas. The drop-out rates are enormous, thanks to extremely poor funding, rampant crime, and gangs and drug violence.

[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;43713379]I get the idea behind it, though I'm not sure how you'd go about dealing with it without pissing everyone off honestly.[/QUOTE] I think the idea behind it is flawed from the start. Government provided welfare is relatively recent in human history. That's because government itself is a relatively recent development in human history. And yet, over thousands and thousands of years of human history with no social safety net, poor people have been having kids. Even TODAY, in countries where people can starve to death, people still have kids. What does this prove? To me it proves that the reproductive impulse is a natural drive of humanity and it is not controllable by simplistic methods like "let's cut welfare". There are more complex, indirect methods that have effect. Notice that highly educated, financially well off people tend to have fewer kids. That suggest that improving people's quality of life might have the desired effect. Cutting welfare isn't going to improve these people's quality of life though.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43715522]Have you seen what happened with No Child Left Behind? Considering the enormous degrees of variance between schools, assigning financial consequences to often arbitrary grades is a terrible idea. Every school is different, hell, every teacher is different. Not to mention that for a lot of kids who have trouble in school, there are problems outside of school. 'Just put in some basic effort' might not be so easy for the kid trying to, y'know, live on welfare.[/QUOTE] The No Child Left Behind act was abhorrent. It absolutely crippled the US education system, especially in very poor areas, making bad problems immeasurably worse. If I had to pick one single piece of legislation to come from the Bush administration that had more devastating effects on the average American citizen than any other, it would be that, because it radically stunted the educational potential of an entire generation of children. That's not to say that there weren't a dozen other contenders for the spot. The Patriot Act still makes me grit my teeth.

I want a republican to hold my hand and wave a dollar in my face when I make sex/baby decisions.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;43713351]No, I mean it seems to follow the whole eugenics bullcrap in some respect[/QUOTE] althrough it doesn't really follow eugenics, you can bet quite a few folks who support it, would absolutely be ecstatic with such policy, which kinda says something about it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43715587]You have no idea how bad the education system really is in deeply povertous areas. The drop-out rates are enormous, thanks to extremely poor funding, rampant crime, and gangs and drug violence.[/QUOTE] And that idea would make it even more a self-perpetuating cycle than before.

[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] You are fucking crazy.

I think hes right that people are having too many kids that they cant pay for and expect everyone else to pay for them. Baby daddy's can never be found however I don't think this is the right way to go about it. It only punishes the children and its not their fault. Get some fucking condoms they give them away everywhere. Its practically fucking raining condoms.

[QUOTE=Mudbone;43716404]I think hes right that people are having too many kids that they cant pay for and expect everyone else to pay for them. Baby daddy's can never be found however I don't think this is the right way to go about it. It only punishes the children and its not their fault. Get some fucking condoms they give them away everywhere. Its practically fucking raining condoms.[/QUOTE] or be ugly and no one will fuck u

[QUOTE=Sableye;43715170]sure that'll get something done, totally..... fuck has never heard of utilitarianism, doing the most work, helping the most people, for the least amount of effort. any law according to utilitarianism, must work to help people, fining people for having children is not going to fix any problem because the children are ultimately the ones suffering from the law. if he wanted to do anything serious he could float the idea of providing single women with free financial councilors[/QUOTE] No. Utility towards whatever is chosen as being the greatest public good. Reducing suffering and increasing happiness is just one kind of utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism suffers from major problems. IE: Possibly supporting police framing congenient suspects to appease the masses, etc etc.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43713516]Eugenics could do some good[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xystus234;43713609]Racism is a thing of the past.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xystus234;43713635]I think it would be a great idea to conscript children who get sent to orphanages.[/QUOTE] please keep posting, this is entertaining

[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] I'm not saying this as an insult or an attack on you personally, rather this comes from a place of compassion; you might need help. Maybe you're just a disillusioned angry teenager who hasn't experienced a lot of suffering, maybe you've seen some shit I don't know, but while shit like that makes for a great science fiction novel it's not because it's in any way right or justifiable. You at the very least lack empathy for other human beings, and it makes me wonder what you might be going through that would make you say things like that. Seriously, talk to someone.